Bonaventure Oguaju MBBS, Darren Lau MD, PhD, Raj Padwal MD, MSc, Jennifer Ringrose MD, MSc
{"title":"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","authors":"Bonaventure Oguaju MBBS, Darren Lau MD, PhD, Raj Padwal MD, MSc, 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> < 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":"{\"title\":\"Inter-observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement\",\"authors\":\"Bonaventure Oguaju MBBS, Darren Lau MD, PhD, Raj Padwal MD, MSc, 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> < 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}","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
摘要
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。
Inter-observer reliability and anatomical landmarks for arm circumference to determine cuff size for blood pressure measurement
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.
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.