You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original article
Blood pressure in children aged 4–8 years: comparison of Omron HEM 711 and sphygmomanometer blood pressure measurements
  1. P C Midgley1,
  2. B Wardhaugh2,
  3. C Macfarlane2,
  4. R Magowan2,
  5. C J H Kelnar2
  1. 1
    Department of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2
    Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr P Midgley, Neonatal Unit, Simpson CRH, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4SA, UK; paula.midgley{at}ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective: To collect normal data on blood pressure (BP) in healthy children aged 4–8 and to compare measurements of BP made in the same subjects with a sphygmomanometer and a portable automated oscillometric BP monitor (Omron HEM 711 with child cuff).

Methods: Cross-sectional observational study of 764 children. BP measurements were made at school, using both a sphygmomanometer and an Omron HEM 711. Immediately after the BP measurement children were asked to state which device they preferred (if any).

Results: Children had no preference for whether the sphygmomanometer or the Omron was used. Bland-Altman plots showed a lack of consistency between the two methods of BP measurement. With systolic BP there was a trend for the Omron to underestimate when low and overestimate when high.

Conclusions: Children were equally distributed in their preference for BP device. There was a wide variation between the two methods of BP measurement, which suggests that comparison of automated BP measurements with normative data obtained by sphygmomanometer is not valid.

https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.137059

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.