The effect of back and feet support on oscillometric blood pressure measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Recommendations to support the back and feet during blood pressure (BP) measurement are not always followed in clinical practice. Our objective was to determine to what extent back and feet support affects mean oscillometric BP measurements. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive, consenting participants 18 years or older with systolic BP readings 80-220 mmHg and diastolic BP readings 50-120 mmHg and arm circumferences of 25-43 cm were recruited. BP was measured using an Omron HEM 907 oscillometric device. Back and feet support were examined independently. First, while the feet were supported, two sets of three BP readings were taken in random order: one with the back supported and one with the back unsupported. Next, with the back supported, two sets of three BP readings were taken in random order: one with the feet dangling and one with feet supported. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 52.0±20.7 years and the mean arm circumference was 31.0±3.2 cm; 62% were women and 49% had hypertension. The mean BP levels with the back unsupported were slightly higher than those with the back supported (119.8±15.5/69.9±8.9 vs. 119.2±16.4/68.2±8.8 mmHg; difference of 0.7±4.9/1.8±3.0; P=0.21 for systolic and <0.0001 for diastolic comparisons). The mean BP levels with feet dangling were slightly lower than with feet supported (120.3±16.3/72.6±8.9 vs. 121.2±16.1/72.9±8.6 mmHg; difference of -0.9±4.1/-0.3±2.8; P=0.04 for systolic and <0.36 for diastolic comparisons). Systolic BP differences were greater than or equal to 5 mmHg in 34% (back phase) and 23% (feet phase) of the participants. CONCLUSION: Provision of back and feet support has a small effect on the mean oscillometric BP. The magnitude of effect is greatest on diastolic BP when the back is unsupported.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".