↓ Skip to main content

Observer error in blood pressure measurement.

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, September 1986
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Observer error in blood pressure measurement.
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, September 1986
Pubmed ID
Authors

P D Neufeld, D L Johnson

Abstract

This paper describes an experiment undertaken to determine observer error in measuring blood pressure by the auscultatory method. A microcomputer was used to display a simulated mercury manometer and play back tape-recorded Korotkoff sounds synchronized with the fall of the mercury column. Each observer's readings were entered into the computer, which displayed a histogram of all readings taken up to that point and thus showed the variation among observers. The procedure, which could easily be adapted for use in teaching, was used to test 311 observers drawn from physicians, nurses, medical students, nursing students and others at nine health care institutions in Ottawa. The results showed a strong bias for even-digit readings and standard deviations of roughly 5 to 6 mm Hg. The standard deviation for the systolic readings was somewhat smaller for the physicians as a group than for the nurses (3.5 v. 5.9 mm Hg). However, the standard deviations for the diastolic readings were roughly equal for these two groups (approximately 5.5 mm Hg).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Other 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Engineering 2 13%
Psychology 1 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,962,193
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#4,994
of 9,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,963
of 10,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 10,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.