Johnson C J, Kerr J H
Anaesthesia. 1985 May;40(5):471-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1985.tb10851.x.
Five automatic blood pressure monitors were evaluated by comparing their values with almost simultaneous blood pressure readings from radial artery catheters. A total of 583 comparisons were made on 48 patients. Statistical analysis was performed on the pooled comparisons of systolic and diastolic pressure for each monitor. Agreement between the pressure measurements was variable between both patients and machines. For systolic pressure, two machines (Copal and Sentron) had correlation coefficients of over 0.9 while for the other machines (Dinamap 845XT, Narco and Vitastat 9001S) the values lay between 0.7 and 0.8. The steepest regression lines were also found with the Copal (0.93) and Sentron (0.86) data, but the other machines had considerably flatter slopes (0.55 to 0.67). The intercepts on the Y axes ranged from +14.1 (Copa) to +50.1 (Dinamap). In clinical use, popularity of the different machines reflected the degree to which the machine reproduced the behaviour of the direct pressure measurement.
通过将五台自动血压监测仪的值与桡动脉导管几乎同时测得的血压读数进行比较，对其进行了评估。对48名患者共进行了583次比较。对每个监测仪收缩压和舒张压的汇总比较进行了统计分析。患者和仪器之间的压力测量一致性各不相同。对于收缩压，两台仪器（Copal和Sentron）的相关系数超过0.9，而其他仪器（Dinamap 845XT、Narco和Vitastat 9001S）的值在0.7至0.8之间。Copal（0.93）和Sentron（0.86）的数据回归直线斜率最陡，但其他仪器的斜率要平缓得多（0.55至0.67）。Y轴截距范围从+14.1（Copal）到+50.1（Dinamap）。在临床应用中，不同仪器的受欢迎程度反映了该仪器再现直接压力测量结果的程度。
