Blood pressure monitoring · 2015
Validation of two automatic devices: Omron HEM-7252G-HP and Omron HEM-7251G for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Takahashi Hakuo, Yoshika Masamichi, Yokoi Toyohiko
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the performance of Omron HEM-7252G-HP and Omron HEM-7251G for monitoring upper arm blood pressure (BP) in accordance with the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 (ESH-IP revision 2010).
METHODS: Three trained medical doctors validated the performance of these devices by comparing data obtained from these devices with those obtained using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. We included 33 participants (19 men and 14 women for the experiment using HEM-7252G-HP; 16 men and 17 women for the experiment using HEM-7251G). The mean age of the participants was 50±12 and 53±10 years in the respective studies.
RESULTS: The percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg were 76, 92, and 97% for systolic BP (SBP) and 83, 97, and 99% for diastolic BP (DBP), respectively, in the Omron HEM-7252G-HP and 77, 92, and 99% for SBP and 85, 94, and 98% for DBP, respectively, in the Omron HEM-7251G in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 and part 2 criteria.The mean differences between the device and mercury readings for SBP and DBP were as follows: HEM-7252G-HP, -1.5±5.1 and -1.2±3.9 mmHg, respectively; HEM-7351G, -0.6±4.7 and -0.2±4.4 mmHg, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The Omron HEM-7252G-HP and HEM-7251G passed all the requirements of the ESH-IP 2010 revision.
METHODS: Three trained medical doctors validated the performance of these devices by comparing data obtained from these devices with those obtained using a standard mercury sphygmomanometer. We included 33 participants (19 men and 14 women for the experiment using HEM-7252G-HP; 16 men and 17 women for the experiment using HEM-7251G). The mean age of the participants was 50±12 and 53±10 years in the respective studies.
RESULTS: The percentages of test device-observer mercury sphygmomanometer BP differences within 5, 10, and 15 mmHg were 76, 92, and 97% for systolic BP (SBP) and 83, 97, and 99% for diastolic BP (DBP), respectively, in the Omron HEM-7252G-HP and 77, 92, and 99% for SBP and 85, 94, and 98% for DBP, respectively, in the Omron HEM-7251G in the part 1 analysis; both SBP and DBP passed the part 1 and part 2 criteria.The mean differences between the device and mercury readings for SBP and DBP were as follows: HEM-7252G-HP, -1.5±5.1 and -1.2±3.9 mmHg, respectively; HEM-7351G, -0.6±4.7 and -0.2±4.4 mmHg, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The Omron HEM-7252G-HP and HEM-7251G passed all the requirements of the ESH-IP 2010 revision.