MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2403025592 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000000817

A Prospective Observational Comparison Between Arm and Wrist Blood Pressure During Scheduled Cesarean Delivery

2015· article· en· W2403025592 on OpenAlexaff
Ilana Sebbag, Simon Massey, Arianne Albert, Alison Dube, V. Gunka, M. Joanne Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWristMedicineConfidence intervalBlood pressureShiveringAnesthesiaLimits of agreementSurgeryInternal medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Shivering is common during cesarean delivery (CD) under neuraxial anesthesia and may disrupt the measurement of noninvasive blood pressure (BP). BP measured at the wrist may be less affected by shivering. There have been no studies comparing trends in BP measured on the upper arm and wrist. We hypothesized that wrist systolic blood pressure (sBP) would accurately trend with upper arm sBP measurements (agree within a limit of ±10%) in parturients undergoing elective CD under spinal anesthesia or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. METHODS: After initiation of spinal anesthesia, BP measurements were obtained simultaneously from the upper arm and wrist on opposite arms. The interval between measurements was 1 to 2 minutes, and data were collected for 20 minutes or until delivery. The primary outcome was agreement in dynamic changes in sBP measurements between the upper arm and the wrist. Bland-Altman plots indicating the levels of agreement between the methods were drawn for baseline measurements, over multiple measurements, and over multiple measurements on percentage change from baseline. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were recruited and completed the study. The wrist sBP tended to overestimate the upper sBP for both baseline data (sBP bias = 13.4 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval = +10.4 to +16.4 mm Hg) and data obtained over multiple measurements (sBP bias = 12.8 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval = +9.3 to +16.3 mm Hg). For change in sBP from baseline over multiple measurements, the mean difference between the wrist and the arm sBP was -0.2 percentage points (99% limits of agreement -25 to +25 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS: The wrist measurement overestimated the reading relative to the upper arm measurement for multiple measurements over time. However, when the time series for each subject was examined for percentage change from baseline, the 2 methods mirrored each other in most cases. Nevertheless, our hypothesis was rejected as the limits of agreement were higher than ±10%. This finding suggests that wrist BP may not be an accurate method of detecting hypotension or hypertension during spinal or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for CD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207