...
首页> 外文期刊>Blood Pressure Monitoring >New clinical validation method for automated sphygmomanometer: a proposal by Japan ISO-WG for sphygmomanometer standard.
【24h】

New clinical validation method for automated sphygmomanometer: a proposal by Japan ISO-WG for sphygmomanometer standard.

机译:自动化血压计的新临床验证方法:日本ISO-WG提出的血压计标准提案。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

INTRODUCTION: Owing to fast or stepwise cuff deflation, or measuring at places other than the upper arm, the clinical accuracy of most recent automated sphygmomanometers (auto-BPMs) cannot be validated by one-arm simultaneous comparison, which would be the only accurate validation method based on auscultation. Two main alternative methods are provided by current standards, that is, two-arm simultaneous comparison (method 1) and one-arm sequential comparison (method 2); however, the accuracy of these validation methods might not be sufficient to compensate for the suspicious accuracy in lateral blood pressure (BP) differences (LD) and/or BP variations (BPV) between the device and reference readings. Thus, the Japan ISO-WG for sphygmomanometer standards has been studying a new method that might improve validation accuracy (method 3). The purpose of this study is to determine the appropriateness of method 3 by comparing immunity to LD and BPV with those of the current validation methods (methods 1 and 2).METHOD: The validation accuracy of the above three methods was assessed in human participants [N=120, 45+/-15.3 years (mean+/-SD)]. An oscillometric automated monitor, Omron HEM-762, was used as the tested device. RESULTS: When compared with the others, methods 1 and 3 showed a smaller intra-individual standard deviation of device error (SD1), suggesting their higher reproducibility of validation. The SD1 by method 2 (P=0.004) significantly correlated with the participant's BP, supporting our hypothesis that the increased SD of device error by method 2 is at least partially caused by essential BPV. Method 3 showed a significantly (P=0.0044) smaller interparticipant SD of device error (SD2), suggesting its higher interparticipant consistency of validation. CONCLUSION: Among the methods of validation of the clinical accuracy of auto-BPMs, method 3, which showed the highest reproducibility and highest interparticipant consistency, can be proposed as being the most appropriate.
机译:简介:由于袖带快速或逐步放气,或在上臂以外的地方进行测量,最新的自动血压计(auto-BPM)的临床准确性无法通过单臂同时比较来验证,这将是唯一的准确验证听诊的方法。当前的标准提供了两种主要的替代方法,即两臂同时比较(方法1)和一臂顺序比较(方法2)。但是,这些验证方法的准确性可能不足以补偿设备读数与参考读数之间的横向血压(BP)差异(LD)和/或BP变化(BPV)的可疑准确性。因此,日本ISO-WG血压计标准正在研究一种可能会提高验证准确性的新方法(方法3)。这项研究的目的是通过比较对LD和BPV的免疫力与当前验证方法(方法1和2)的免疫力来确定方法3的适用性。方法:在人类受试者中评估了上述三种方法的验证准确性[ N = 120,45 +/- 15.3岁(平均+/- SD)]。示波器自动监测仪Omron HEM-762被用作测试设备。结果:与其他方法相比,方法1和方法3的装置误差(SD1)个体内标准偏差较小,表明它们的验证重现性更高。方法2的SD1(P = 0.004)与参与者的BP显着相关,支持我们的假设,即方法2增加的设备错误的SD至少部分是由基本BPV引起的。方法3显示设备错误(SD2)的参与者间SD显着较小(P = 0.0044),表明其参与者间的验证一致性更高。结论:在验证自动BPM临床准确性的方法中,可以建议最可重复性最高,参与者间一致性最高的方法3。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号