O'Brien E, Atkins N
Blood Pressure Unit, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
J Hypertens. 1994 Sep;12(9):1089-94.
Experience with the original protocols of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and the British Hypertension Society (BHS) for validating blood pressure has provided valuable insight into the methodological problems associated with device validation and has influenced both the BHS and the AAMI in revising their protocols.
To review the revisions of the original BHS and AAMI protocols; to compare the protocols; and, using the BHS protocol as a framework for validation, to determine how it should be modified to a protocol that will fulfil the criteria of both the AAMI and the BHS.
The revised protocols have many similarities but there are some important differences. These differences merit consideration so as to facilitate manufacturers seeking to validate devices for acceptance in both Europe and the United States. Of the two protocols, the BHS protocol is the more elaborate in that (1) it takes particular care to ensure that observers are trained to a very high standard, (2) it makes provision for special group validation and (3) it recommends in-use validation of all devices. By modifying the BHS protocol, it is possible to validate blood pressure measuring devices (ambulatory devices require special consideration) to satisfy the criteria of both protocols.
美国医学仪器促进协会(AAMI)和英国高血压学会(BHS)最初的血压验证方案实施经验,为洞察与设备验证相关的方法学问题提供了宝贵见解,并在修订其方案方面影响了BHS和AAMI。
回顾BHS和AAMI原始方案的修订情况;比较这两个方案;并以BHS方案作为验证框架,确定应如何将其修改为符合AAMI和BHS标准的方案。
修订后的方案有许多相似之处,但也存在一些重要差异。这些差异值得考虑,以便为寻求在欧洲和美国均获认可的设备验证制造商提供便利。在这两个方案中,BHS方案更为详尽,具体表现为:(1)特别注重确保观察者接受高标准培训;(2)规定了特殊群体验证;(3)建议对所有设备进行使用中验证。通过修改BHS方案,有可能验证血压测量设备(动态设备需要特殊考虑)以满足两个方案的标准。