Effect of Cuff Design on Auscultatory and Oscillometric Blood Pressure Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two-piece blood pressure (BP) cuffs are the historical cuff standard. Use of 1-piece cuffs is increasing. Substituting 1-piece for 2-piece cuffs has an unknown effect on measurement accuracy. We compared these cuff types in a 2-phase study using auscultatory and oscillometric techniques. METHODS: Consenting subjects (aged ≥18 years) with BP levels between 80 and 220mm Hg/50 and 120mm Hg and arm circumferences between 25 and 43cm were studied using the International Standards Organization (ISO) 2013 protocol (modified). A Baum 2-piece cuff was used as the reference standard. A 1-piece Welch Allyn cuff was the comparator. In phase 1 (2-observer auscultation with a mercury sphygmomanometer), 88 subjects were required to obtain 255 paired BP determinations. In phase 2 (oscillometric measurement with a Spacelabs 90207 device), 85 subjects were studied. Each phase was analyzed separately using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Phase 1 mean age was 54.2±20.5 years, mean arm circumference was 29.9±3.7cm, 60% were female, and 32% had hypertension. One-piece cuff mean BPs were lower than the 2-piece cuff means (115.5±15.5/66.4±9.3 vs. 117.8±15.2/67.9±9.2; difference of -2.4±3.6/-1.5±2.4; P values <0.0001 for systolic and diastolic comparisons). Phase 2 mean age was 52.8±20.8 years, mean arm circumference was 29.4±3.9cm, 67% were female, and 38% had hypertension. Mean BPs were lower for the 1-piece compared to the 2-piece cuff (116.5±12.8/67.1±8.1 vs. 120.8±13.5/70.4±8.5; difference of -4.4±3.6/-3.3±2.7; P values <0.0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Mean BP is lower with 1-piece cuffs vs. 2-piece cuffs. Differences are greater with oscillometry. When performing validation studies and measurements for clinical purposes, cuff type should be taken into account.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".