Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 647–649

Brief report: How well do clinic-based blood pressure measurements agree with the mercury standard?

  • Jennifer W. Kim
  • Hayden B. Bosworth
  • Corrine I. Voils
  • Maren Olsen
  • Tara Dudley
  • Matthew Gribbin
  • Martha Adams
  • Eugene Z. Oddone
Original Article

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-005-0112-6

Cite this article as:
Kim, J.W., Bosworth, H.B., Voils, C.I. et al. J GEN INTERN MED (2005) 20: 647. doi:10.1007/s11606-005-0112-6

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obtaining accurate blood pressure (BP) readings is a challenge faced by health professionals. Clinical trials implement strict protocols, whereas clinical practices and studies that assess quality of care utilize a less rigorous protocol for BP measurement.

OBJECTIVE: To examine agreement between real-time clinic-based assessment of BP and the standard mercury assessment of BP.

DESIGN: Prospective reliability study.

PATIENTS: One hundred patients with an International Classification of Diseases—9th edition code for hypertension were enrolled.

MEASURES: Two BP measurements were obtained with the Hawksley random-zero mercury sphygmomanometer and averaged. The clinic-based BP was extracted from the computerized medical records.

RESULTS: Agreement between the mercury and clinic-based systolic blood pressure (SBP) was good, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83 to 0.94); the agreement for the mercury and clinic-based diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was satisfactory, ICC=0.77 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86). Overall, clinic-based readings overestimated the mercury readings, with a mean overestimation of 8.3 mmHg for SBP and 7.1 mmHg for DBP. Based on the clinic-based measure, 21% of patients were misdiagnosed with uncontrolled hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals should be aware of this potential difference when utilizing clinic-based BP values for making treatment decisions and/or assessing quality of care.

Key words

blood pressure measurement assessmentclinic methodmercury device

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer W. Kim
    • 1
  • Hayden B. Bosworth
    • 2
    • 3
  • Corrine I. Voils
    • 3
  • Maren Olsen
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tara Dudley
    • 4
  • Matthew Gribbin
    • 5
  • Martha Adams
    • 2
  • Eugene Z. Oddone
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Duke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biostatistics and InformaticsDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  6. 6.Health Services Research and DevelopmentDurham Veterans Affairs Medical Center 152Durham