Adequacy of validation of wide-range cuffs used with home blood pressure monitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Wide-range 'one-size-fits-all' blood pressure (BP) cuffs are commonly sold with home BP monitors. Assessment of the accuracy of these cuffs is important because they do not adhere to the basic principles of proper cuffing. The aim of this systematic review was to review the published validation data evaluating the accuracy of wide-range cuffs. METHODS: Medline (1946-2017) and the Web of Science (2002-2017) were searched for home BP device validation studies carried out according to an established validation protocol and published in English. Studies that included assessment of a wide-range cuff (defined as a cuff with a range of 15 cm or greater) were sought. The quality of wide-range cuff assessment was scored on a three-point scale, with one point assigned each for (a) passing validation criteria, (b) full evaluation across the entire cuff range, and (c) reporting of results stratified by arm circumference. RESULTS: Twenty-five validation studies were identified, reporting data on 28 device/wide-range cuff combinations. Study quality was poor - 21 studies received a score of one and four studies received a score of two. All studies were awarded one point because the device-cuff combination passed the chosen validation protocol. Only two studies ensured full assessment of the cuff range; however, neither study reported results stratified by arm circumference. Of the two studies that did report results by arm circumference, one showed a potentially direct linear relationship between arm circumference and device-observer error. CONCLUSION: Despite their widespread use, the evidence supporting use of wide-range home BP cuffs is inadequate.
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 | 0.179 | 0.525 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".