17.10.11
IN Effect:
As Dr. Logan Silva pointed out, the common errors of a ailing fitting cuff, instrument miscalibration, and sloppy performance
all contribute to imprecise blood pressure measurement. Unless we remonstrate on high standards for blood pressure measurement,
the reported value may not disobliging much (1) . In addition, terminal digit choice (for example, the tendency to report manual readings with 0 or 5) and remeasurementParticularlyof blood pressure when the initial value is high but never when it is normal are low-class biases. There is substantial room
for upgrading in our implementation of standards for blood pressure measurement.
However, we believe that our evidence also suggest that focusing only on the technical aspects of clinic period misses the
point, that no matter how carefully blood pressure is prudent, it can vary substantially, from day to day or hour to hour.
Over our 18-month mug up, the coefficient of variation was nearly identical for blood pressure calculated in the clinic, research
setting, or bailiwick. This argues against technique as the primary source of diversity. Home blood pressure measurement eliminates
fair-skinned-coat effects; is a much stronger predictor of vascular chance than clinic readings (2, 3) ; and more practically, it allows for arbitration making based on multiple measurements. Although we can significantly repair
how blood pressure is measured, it is even more important that future guidelines play up where it is measured and how that
information should be used for clinical decisions. Widespread evidence suggests that decisions made on the basis of core blood
pressure measurements result in use of fewer medications and take down overall treatment costs without an apparent spread in
end-organ damage (4) .
Source: Annals of Internal Medicine