Public Health
Volume 114, Issue 3 , Pages 165-168, May 2000

Measuring blood pressure at the wrist:

more comfortable for patients and more convenient for doctors?

  • S de Lusignan

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice and Primary Care, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 ORE, UK
  • ,
  • K Thiru Mr

      Affiliations

    • Department of General Practice and Primary Care, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 ORE, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence: Mr K Thiru, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 ORE, UK
  • ,
  • K Meredith

      Affiliations

    • Woodbridge Hill Surgery, Guildford GU2 6AT, UK
  • ,
  • A Majeed

      Affiliations

    • School of Public Policy, University College London, London, WC1H 9EZ, UK
  • ,
  • P Johnson

      Affiliations

    • Nuffield Department of Obstetric and Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK

Accepted 15 June 1999.

Abstract 

Objectives: To compare the agreement between conventional measurement of blood pressure and measurements obtained using two automated devices; and to compare how comfortable each of the three methods of measurement were for patients.

Methods: Blood pressure measurements and patient comfort scores were recorded using three different devices in 125-surgery and 40-community patients. The devices used were a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer, an automated device that measured blood pressure on the upper arm and an automated device that measured blood pressure at the wrist. In each patient, the difference between the conventional and automatic measurement was calculated. The limits of agreement of each device were then calculated as the mean difference ±1.96 standard deviations.

Results: In surgery patients, the width of limits of agreement of wrist measurement were 20.0 mm Hg and 12.1 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively, compared with 26.4 mm Hg and 27.7 mm Hg for automatic arm measurement. In community patients, the width of limits of agreement of wrist measurement were 11.6 mm Hg and 11.0 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively, compared with 19.5 mm Hg and 12.1 mm Hg for automatic arm measurement. Surgery patients also reported that wrist measurement of blood pressure was significantly more comfortable than either manual or automatic arm measurement (mean comfort scores 4.03 for automatic wrist and 2.13 for automatic arm measurement, Friedman's Test, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Blood pressure measurements taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device. The wrist device was also more comfortable for patients than two other methods of blood pressure measurement.

Public Health (2000) 114, 165–168

Keywords:  automatic blood pressure measurement, comparative study, telemedicine

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0033-3506(00)00329-2

doi:10.1038/sj.ph.1900614

Public Health
Volume 114, Issue 3 , Pages 165-168, May 2000