Hunyor S N, Flynn J M, Cochineas C
Br Med J. 1978 Jul 15;2(6131):159-62. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6131.159.
Seven types of sphygmomanometer were used in random order on each of nine hypertensive patients and the readings compared with simultaneous intra-arterial blood-pressure recordings. All the devices gave significantly different values for systolic pressure, and only two measured diastolic pressure without significant error. Systolic pressure was consistently underestimated (range 31-7 mm Hg), and all but one instrument overestimated diastolic pressure (range 10-2 mm Hg). The variability of readings was least with the standard mercury sphygmomanometer and the random-zero machine, while with some of the more automated devices single readings were in error up to -68/33 mm Hg. The strong correlations found between intra-arterial and cuff systolic pressures with all devices tested and significant correlations for diastolic pressure with all but one device indicate that, with one possible exception, the sphygmomanometers would give accurate results where a change in blood pressure was the main concern.
对9名高血压患者每人随机依次使用7种血压计,并将测量读数与同时进行的动脉内血压记录进行比较。所有设备测得的收缩压值均有显著差异,只有两种设备测量舒张压时误差不显著。收缩压一直被低估(范围为31 - 7毫米汞柱),除一种仪器外,所有仪器均高估了舒张压(范围为10 - 2毫米汞柱)。标准汞柱血压计和随机零点血压计读数的变异性最小,而一些自动化程度更高的设备单次读数误差高达 - 68/33毫米汞柱。在所有测试设备中,动脉内收缩压与袖带收缩压之间均发现有强相关性,除一种设备外,所有设备的舒张压也有显著相关性,这表明,可能除一种情况外,在主要关注血压变化的情况下,血压计可给出准确结果。