Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement methods in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phase-out of mercury from clinical settings calls for valid alternatives to assess blood pressure (BP) in children. Aneroid devices provide a mercury-free alternative to BP measurements by auscultation, whereas oscillometric (automated) devices are increasingly becoming the norm in clinical practice due to their ease of use. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the accuracy of oscillometric and aneroid BP devices compared with the mercury sphygmomanometer for the measurement of BP in children. METHODS: We systematically searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) and relevant journals for eligible articles published before 30 July 2015. We screened 1415 articles, and two authors independently reviewed 92 full-text articles. RESULTS: We included 29 articles (38 studies) with 26 879 children. Random-effects model meta-analyses revealed that oscillometric devices yield higher measurements of SBP than auscultation with a mercury sphygmomanometer (pooled effect estimate 2.53 mmHg; 95% CI 0.57-4.50; P < 0.05); the pooled effect estimate for SBP was smaller in studies that 'passed' validation protocols (1.76 mmHg; 95% CI 0.61-2.81; n = 12). There was no significant difference for DBP (pooled effect estimate 1.55 mmHg; 95% CI -0.20 to 3.31). There was heterogeneity between studies, explained in part by differences in manufacturer, study setting and observer training. Only three studies compared BP using aneroid and mercury devices and found comparable results. CONCLUSION: Oscillometric devices may serve as a suitable alternative to auscultation for initial BP screening in the pediatric population.
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 | 0.040 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".