IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v20y2011i5-6p602-614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review of variability and reliability of manual and automated blood pressure readings

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Skirton
  • Wendy Chamberlain
  • Caroline Lawson
  • Helen Ryan
  • Emma Young

Abstract

Aims and objectives. To compare the accuracy and appropriateness of auscultatory (manual) and oscillometric (automated) devices for measuring blood pressure in clinical settings. Background. Accurate measurement of blood pressure is integral to early recognition of deterioration in the condition of a patient. Despite recommendations regarding the use of auscultatory devices in situations where treatment decisions are made dependent on blood readings, the use of automated machines is becoming common practice. Design. Systematic review. Methods. A search of the Medline, CINAHLPlus and The Cochrane Library databases was undertaken for papers published in English between January 1997–May 2009. Sixteen studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, all were included in the review. Results are presented in tabular and narrative form. Results. In 10 of the studies reviewed, the authors came to the conclusion that oscillometric devices were less accurate than auscultatory devices. However, in most cases the oscillometric device appears sufficiently accurate for clinical use, the exceptions being use with hypertensive patients, patients with arrhythmia and after trauma. Only two studies assessed the comparative accuracy of aneroid devices, and these indicated that they were more accurate than oscillometric devices, but the differences were not clinically important. Conclusions. There are situations where the substitution of oscillometric for auscultatory devices could have particularly serious repercussions for the patient, such as when the patient is either hypertensive or hypotensive. However, further research is required on the use of aneroid sphygmomanometers as a replacement for mercury devices. Relevance to clinical practice. Practitioners should be made aware of the need to use auscultatory devices in specific circumstances, such as in management of hypertension, after the patient has experienced trauma or where there is significant potential for deterioration in the patient’s condition.

Suggested Citation

  • Heather Skirton & Wendy Chamberlain & Caroline Lawson & Helen Ryan & Emma Young, 2011. "A systematic review of variability and reliability of manual and automated blood pressure readings," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5‐6), pages 602-614, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:5-6:p:602-614
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03528.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03528.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03528.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:20:y:2011:i:5-6:p:602-614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.