Mingji Cuomu, Onakpoya Igho J, Heneghan Carl J, Ward Alison M
Tibetan Medical College, Lhasa, Tibet; Austrian Academy of Science, Vienna, Austria.
Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Heart Asia. 2016 Oct 26;8(2):46-51. doi: 10.1136/heartasia-2016-010798. eCollection 2016.
The validity of blood pressure (BP)-measuring tools at very high altitudes is uncertain. Therefore, the objective of this review was to examine the degree of agreement of BP-measuring devices in Tibet.
We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library and the ISI Web of Science. Randomised and observational studies were considered for inclusion. The methodological characteristics of included studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 criteria. Our primary outcome was the difference in mean BP measurements between the new device and the gold standard.
We identified three eligible studies, out of which two with a total of 162 participants were included. The studies differed in their methodology. One study reported significantly higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurement with electronic sphygmomanometer (Omron) compared with mercury sphygmomanometer (mean difference 5.8±4.7 mm Hg; p<0.001), with no significant difference in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measurement (0.4±3.9 mm Hg; p=0.23). The second study reported mean differences of 1.0±5.9 mm Hg and -3.1±4.6 mm Hg for SBP and DBP, respectively.
The limited evidence from published studies suggests that automated (Omron) BP monitors show a high degree of agreement for DBP when compared against mercury sphygmomanometer at high altitudes. However, the degree of such agreement for SBP is not consistent. Few studies assessing the validity of automated BP monitors at high altitudes have been conducted, and they differ in design and methodology. Further research assessing the suitability of BP-measuring instruments at high altitudes is therefore warranted.
在极高海拔地区血压测量工具的有效性尚不确定。因此,本综述的目的是研究西藏地区血压测量设备的一致性程度。
我们在Medline、Embase、Cinahl、Cochrane图书馆、全球健康图书馆和ISI科学网进行了电子检索。纳入随机和观察性研究。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2标准评估纳入研究的方法学特征。我们的主要结局是新设备与金标准之间平均血压测量值的差异。
我们确定了三项符合条件的研究,其中两项共纳入162名参与者。这些研究方法不同。一项研究报告称,与汞柱式血压计相比,电子血压计(欧姆龙)测量的收缩压显著更高(平均差异5.8±4.7 mmHg;p<0.001),舒张压测量无显著差异(0.4±3.9 mmHg;p=0.23)。第二项研究报告收缩压和舒张压的平均差异分别为1.0±5.9 mmHg和-3.1±4.6 mmHg。
已发表研究的有限证据表明,在高海拔地区,与汞柱式血压计相比,自动(欧姆龙)血压监测仪在舒张压测量方面显示出高度一致性。然而,收缩压的这种一致性程度并不一致。评估高海拔地区自动血压监测仪有效性的研究很少,且设计和方法各不相同。因此,有必要进一步研究评估高海拔地区血压测量仪器的适用性。