Inter-observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Clinical Hypertension Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1111/jch.14854
Bonaventure Oguaju MBBS, Darren Lau MD, PhD, Raj Padwal MD, MSc, Jennifer Ringrose MD, MSc
{"title":"Inter-observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement","authors":"Bonaventure Oguaju MBBS,&nbsp;Darren Lau MD, PhD,&nbsp;Raj Padwal MD, MSc,&nbsp;Jennifer Ringrose MD, MSc","doi":"10.1111/jch.14854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate arm circumference (AC) measurement is required for accurate blood pressure (BP) readings. Standards stipulate measuring arm circumference at the midpoint between the acromion process (AP) and the olecranon process. However, which part of the AP to use is not stipulated. Furthermore, BP is measured sitting but arm circumference is measured standing. We sought to understand how landmarking during AC measurement and body position affect cuff size selection. Two variations in measurement procedure were studied. First, AC was measured at the top of the acromion (TOA) and compared to the spine of the acromion (SOA). Second, standing versus seated measurements using each landmark were compared. AC was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm at the mid-point of the upper arm by two independent observers, blinded from each other's measurements. In 51 participants, the mean (±SD) mid-AC measurement using the anchoring landmarks TOA and SOA in the standing position were 32.4 cm (±6.18) and 32.1 cm (±6.07), respectively (mean difference of 0.3 cm). In the seated position, mean arm circumference was 32.2 (±6.10) using TOA and 31.1 (±6.03) using SOA (mean difference 1.1 cm). Kappa agreement for cuff selection in the standing position between TOA and SOA was 0.94 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). The landmark on the acromion process can change the cuff selection in a small percentage of cases. The overall impact of this landmark selection is small. However, standardizing landmark selection and body position for AC measurement could further reduce variability in cuff size selection during BP measurement and validation studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":50237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","volume":"26 7","pages":"867-871"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jch.14854","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jch.14854","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Accurate arm circumference (AC) measurement is required for accurate blood pressure (BP) readings. Standards stipulate measuring arm circumference at the midpoint between the acromion process (AP) and the olecranon process. However, which part of the AP to use is not stipulated. Furthermore, BP is measured sitting but arm circumference is measured standing. We sought to understand how landmarking during AC measurement and body position affect cuff size selection. Two variations in measurement procedure were studied. First, AC was measured at the top of the acromion (TOA) and compared to the spine of the acromion (SOA). Second, standing versus seated measurements using each landmark were compared. AC was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm at the mid-point of the upper arm by two independent observers, blinded from each other's measurements. In 51 participants, the mean (±SD) mid-AC measurement using the anchoring landmarks TOA and SOA in the standing position were 32.4 cm (±6.18) and 32.1 cm (±6.07), respectively (mean difference of 0.3 cm). In the seated position, mean arm circumference was 32.2 (±6.10) using TOA and 31.1 (±6.03) using SOA (mean difference 1.1 cm). Kappa agreement for cuff selection in the standing position between TOA and SOA was 0.94 (p < 0.001). The landmark on the acromion process can change the cuff selection in a small percentage of cases. The overall impact of this landmark selection is small. However, standardizing landmark selection and body position for AC measurement could further reduce variability in cuff size selection during BP measurement and validation studies.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
臂围的观察者间可靠性和解剖地标确定血压测量袖带尺寸
要准确读取血压 (BP) 值,就必须精确测量臂围 (AC)。标准规定在肩峰突起(AP)和肩胛突起之间的中点测量臂围。但是,没有规定使用肩峰突起的哪个部位。此外,血压是坐着测量的,而臂围是站着测量的。我们试图了解测量臂围时的标记和身体姿势如何影响袖带尺寸的选择。我们研究了两种不同的测量程序。首先,在肩峰顶部(TOA)测量 AC 值,并与肩峰脊柱(SOA)进行比较。其次,比较了使用每个地标进行的站立和坐姿测量。由两名独立的观察者在上臂中点测量 AC 值,精确到 0.1 厘米,并对彼此的测量结果进行盲测。在 51 名参与者中,站立姿势下使用锚定地标 TOA 和 SOA 测量的平均(±SD)AC 中点分别为 32.4 厘米(±6.18)和 32.1 厘米(±6.07)(平均差异为 0.3 厘米)。在坐位时,使用 TOA 的平均臂围为 32.2(±6.10)厘米,使用 SOA 的平均臂围为 31.1(±6.03)厘米(平均相差 1.1 厘米)。在站立位置选择袖带时,TOA 和 SOA 的 Kappa 一致性为 0.94(p < 0.001)。在一小部分病例中,肩峰突上的地标会改变袖带选择。该地标选择的总体影响较小。然而,在测量 AC 时将地标选择和体位标准化可进一步减少血压测量和验证研究中袖带尺寸选择的变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Hypertension
Journal of Clinical Hypertension PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension is a peer-reviewed, monthly publication that serves internists, cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, hypertension specialists, primary care practitioners, pharmacists and all professionals interested in hypertension by providing objective, up-to-date information and practical recommendations on the full range of clinical aspects of hypertension. Commentaries and columns by experts in the field provide further insights into our original research articles as well as on major articles published elsewhere. Major guidelines for the management of hypertension are also an important feature of the Journal. Through its partnership with the World Hypertension League, JCH will include a new focus on hypertension and public health, including major policy issues, that features research and reviews related to disease characteristics and management at the population level.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Mediterranean Diet Adherence on the Incidence of New-Onset Hypertension in Adults With Obesity in Korea: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Rationale and Design of a Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Study of Esaxerenone Versus Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Older Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension on Calcium Channel Blocker Monotherapy (ESCORT-HT). Renal Denervation: New Evidence Supporting Long-Term Efficacy, Alternative Access Routes, and Cost-Effectiveness. Obesity, aldosterone excess, and mineralocorticoid receptor activation: Parallel or intersected circumstances? Catheter-Based Renal Denervation for Resistant Arterial Hypertension: 10-Year Real-World Follow-Up Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1