You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 16, Issue 6
  • Automated blood pressure readings in primary care demonstrate better correlation to the gold standard of ambulatory monitoring than manual assessment

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Diagnostics
Randomised controlled trial
Automated blood pressure readings in primary care demonstrate better correlation to the gold standard of ambulatory monitoring than manual assessment
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 3 January 2012
    Accurate, but is it patient-centred?

    Although the accuracy of a mercury sphygmomanometer can be debated, automatic and semi-automatic devices which inflate the cuff often do so to well above the systolic pressure and can cause patients considerable discomfort even when an appropriate cuff size has been used. These devices frequently re-inflate for a variety of reasons, but out of control of the operator who is waiting for a reading.

    Anecdotally, I...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 3 January 2012
    Do not discard your mercury sphygmomanometers, yet.

    It would not be surprising to find that the "error" rate in blood pressure determinations with the "old fashioned" sphygmomanometer was due, in part, to a faulty technique by the individuals taking the blood pressures. Remarkably, little or no time is spent in teaching medical students the proper technique for blood pressure determination including the appropriate cuff size to use, the various audible phases, etc. One ca...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.