Talk:Sphygmomanometer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sphygmomanometer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pronunciation

Sphygmomanometer could really use an IPA at the top of the article, don't you agree? Unfortunately I have no idea where to begin in doing one. CycloneNimrod (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try IPA chart for English. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You may want to bookmark Dictionary.com; it's a good source for IPA pronunciation of "common" words (i.e. anything you'd find in a general dictionary). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Spig-mom-an-ometer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.129.251 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The standard pronunciation can be found at howjsay.com Cunningpal (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pix

The images show various kinds of sfy.. sphig.. blood pressure meters, but a picture of one in use would be rather more illustrative. Muad (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palpation

The sphymomanometer can vvvalso be used for palpating a blood pressure. I think some mention should be made of that, but I do not have enough experience palpating a blood pressure with one. --xeroxorex (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blood pressure article does mention this, and gives sources. Note that having experience is neither necessary, nor sufficient; what matters is that you can demonstrate the existence of reliable, third party sources for the information. -- David Woolley (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of digital sphygmanometers

The section on digital sphygmanometers contains this statement:

They measure mean arterial pressure (MAP) and use algorithms to calculate systolic and diastolic values. In this sense, they do not actually measure the blood pressure, but derive the readings.

I believe this is wrong for two reasons:

some digital ones use the ausculatory method (e.g. ambulatory one used on me seven years ago did)
as described in the main blood pressure article, the oscillometric method does produce estimates for systolic and diastolic values directly. It has the advantage that it also produced an estimate for mean pressure.

An estimate of both systolic and diastolic from just mean pressure would be of very little use, but oscillometric devices do compare reasonably well with the manual asculatory method.

-- David Woolley (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc and Nuance

"Harvey Cushing discovered this device in 1901 and popularized it." ... Is "discovered" really the right word? Noogenesis (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types

Regarding  the statement "Some wrist cuff blood pressure monitors
have been found to be quite inaccurate, and the monitor has to be at
the level of the heart when the reading is taken.[2]"

I don't believe the citation [2] references an article which supports the statement, on the contrary,as I read the reference, it concludes that newer wrist monitors that are read at the level of the heart are in fact very accurate when compared to inter-arterial measures - quoting from the linked article titled "Accuracy of a new wrist cuff oscillometric blood pressure device" which seems to be the article cited although there are other articles on the same index page "Thus, the new oscillometric wrist cuff blood pressure measurement device measures arterial blood pressure with great accuracy and reproducibility" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.140.144.130 (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) ~[reply]

I have changed the wording of this item because the article was clearly misleading on this matter. The wording mis-stated the research it cites (both as you show and as throughout the research itself), and therefore gave the reader the diametrically opposite impression to that of the research. LookingGlass (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baumanometer

Would mentioning this 'type' of sphygomanometer be of any use in this article ? http://www.healthworksglobal.net/Pages/OBrien%20Collection/baum.html

Georges GOOSSENS 09:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Claims of absolute accuracy of mercury sphymometers

In the 'types' section, under Mercury sphygmomanometers, the following sentence: They measure blood pressure by observing the height of a column of mercury; once made, errors of calibration cannot occur.

One research article published in the Australian Family Physician presents findings about the falsity of these claims^[1]^[2].

The article says that although errors in aneroid sphygmometers are worse, still, mercury ones also had significant errors.

Should that claim be challenged and removed from the article? --Abderrahman (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Sphygmomanometer calibration: Why, how and how often?" (PDF). Retrieved 4 November 2013.
^ Sphygmomanometer calibration--why, how and how often? - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17925905. Retrieved 4 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Sensing in Digital Devices

I have added a very brief section concerning two types of sensor used in 'Digital' devices. Somebody more expert than me needs to fill in the details regarding the relevant strengths weaknesses and techniques used by each. Since there is a large domestic market for these devices, this is key information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 11:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"empirical statistical oscillometric parameters"

I'm adding a clarify tag to the following sentence as it is rather vague:

[digital sphygmomanometers] do not measure systolic and diastolic pressures directly, per se, but calculate them from the mean pressure and empirical statistical oscillometric parameters

What exactly is meant by "empirical statistical oscillometric parameters"? Does this mean that they contain tables to calculate the systolic and diastolic pressures from the mean alone? If not the mean alone then what variables are passed to the lookup function? (heart rate? atmospheric pressure?) Do they apply to all mammals or just humans? Do competing products on the market produce different results due to having different tables? If not, what's the standard source of data?

To give some context, I ask because I'm looking for a monitor for my cat as taking him to the vets affects the result due to the stress of putting him in a box. All the digital ones seem to show only the (inferred) systolic and diastolic pressures and not the mean. If the inferred values come from a lookup table that only applies to humans then a digital monitor with no mean is not fit for my purr-puss.

-- user:bitplane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.49.177 (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That statement doesn't seem to be correct at all. While systolic and diastolic measurements aren't as accurate as with manual meters, everything I read points to them being measured directly. This had been already challenged years ago on this page, and I have now changed the claim to reflect sources. LjL (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Types: Digital

Have marked POV-section for the "Types" section as there seems to be a personal grudge against digital devices, without providing references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.25.175 (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sphygmomanometer versus blood pressure cuff

A sphygmomanometer is not the same thing as a blood pressure cuff. A sphygmomanometer is an inflatable presssure cuff--the inflatable part that goes around the arm--plus a pressure gauge to read the changing pressure exerted by the blood vessels. Without the gauge, you just have an inflatable cuff, not a sphygmomanometer. Don't let the terminology run away with you.

Poihths (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of accuracy of digital BP devices & broken links in references

Hello,

I was on this page and realized that reference article 6, which discusses the oscillometric method for taking BP, cites articles from the '80s, '90s, and early '00s. Article 6 is used here: "They accurately measure mean blood pressure and pulse rate, while systolic and diastolic pressures are obtained less accurately than with manual meters,[6]" on this Wiki page. I think this statement, should either be cited using more current research or that it should be removed. "They" here is referencing digital meters, whose accuracy have been improved by biomedical engineers over the years.

Since health IT is a rapidly evolving sector, I think it is important that references to health tech are as current as possible. For example, in Europe the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol validates devices using to measure BP. In the third article below, pages 24-25 lists the validation requirements for the ESH-IP 2010 Protocol, which includes the use of "Two standard mercury sphygmomanometers, the components of which have been checked carefully before the study, are used as reference standards. They should be within 1 m of the observers who should be able to follow the menisci at eye level from 40 mmHg to 180 mmHg." The oscillometric devices must produce results similar to the mercury sphygmomanometers, with certain ranges deemed acceptable by the ESH-IP.

A few articles I thought might be helpful for providing more updated, current information about the accuracy of digital BP devices: 1. Mazoteras Pardo, V et al. The QardioArm App in the Assessment of Blood Pressure and Heart Rate: Reliability and Validity Study. Retrieved 23 November 2018. 2. Chahine M et al. Validation of BP devices QardioArm® in the general population and Omron M6 Comfort® in type II diabetic patients according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP). Retrieved 23 November 2018. 3. European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices in adults. http://www.dableducational.org. Retrieved 23 November 2018.

In addition, the links for reference articles 4 and 5 are broken.

Happy to help revise, let me know how I can support.

Thank you,

Karla122018 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Sphygmomanometer calibration: Why, how and how often?" (PDF). Retrieved 4 November 2013.

[2] Sphygmomanometer calibration--why, how and how often? - PubMed - NCBI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17925905. Retrieved 4 November 2013. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]