MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020113123 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.070975

A comparison of blood pressure measurement over a sleeved arm versus a bare arm

2008· article· en· W2020113123 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Grace Ma, Noah D. Sabin, Martin Dawes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut Philippe Pinel de MontréalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCuffConfidence intervalBody mass indexSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The measurement of blood pressure is a common clinical exam with important health consequences. We sought to determine whether the measurement of blood pressure over a sleeved arm varies from that taken on a bare arm. METHODS: We recruited 376 patients between 18 and 85 years of age from a family medicine clinic between September 2004 and November 2006. They all had their blood pressure recorded using the same automatic oscillometric device, with the cuff placed over their bare arms for the first reading. Each patient was then randomly assigned to either the bare-arm group, for which the second blood pressure reading was also taken on a bare arm, or the sleeved-arm group, for which the second reading was taken with the cuff placed over the patient's sleeve. RESULTS: The mean age of the 376 participants was 61.6 years (standard deviation 15.0), 61% of the participants were male, 41% had hypertension and 11.7% had diabetes. We found no clinically important differences between the bare-arm group (n = 180) and the sleeved-arm group (n = 196) in age, sex or body mass index. The mean differences between the first and second readings for patients in the bare-arm group were 4.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8 to 5.5) for systolic blood pressure and 0.1 mm Hg (95% CI -0.7 to 0.9) for diastolic blood pressure. The mean differences between the first and second readings for patients in the sleeved-arm group were 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI 2.1 to 4.7) for systolic blood pressure and 0.4 mm Hg (95% CI -0.4 to 1.3) for diastolic blood pressure. The between-group differences in these values was 0.76 mm Hg (95% CI -1.13 to 2.65) for systolic and -0.31 mm Hg (95% CI -1.48 to 0.86) for diastolic blood pressure; neither of these differences was clinically important or statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: We found that there was no significant difference in blood pressure recorded over a sleeve or on a bare arm. For practical purposes, the decision to measure blood pressure on a bare arm or over a sleeved arm should be left to the judgment of the health care professional taking the blood pressure.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207