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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Accuracy of monitors used for blood pressure checks in English retail pharmacies: a cross-sectional observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp16x684769 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James Hodgkinson, Constantinos Koshiaris, Una Martin, Jonathan Mant, Carl Heneghan, Fd Richard Hobbs, Richard J McManus |
| Abstract |
Free blood pressure (BP) checks offered by community pharmacies provide a potentially useful opportunity to diagnose and/or manage hypertension, but the accuracy of the sphygmomanometers in use is currently unknown. To assess the accuracy of validated automatic BP monitors used for BP checks in a UK retail pharmacy chain. Cross-sectional, observational study in 52 pharmacies from one chain in a range of locations (inner city, suburban, and rural) in central England. Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device (Omron PA-350), at 50 mmHg intervals across the range 0-300 mmHg (static pressure test), with a difference from the reference monitor of +/-3 mmHg at any interval considered a failure. The results were analysed by usage rates and length of time in service. Of 61 BP monitors tested, eight (13%) monitors failed (that is, were >3 mmHg from reference), all of which underestimated BP. Monitor failure rate from the reference monitor of +/- 3 mmHg at any testing interval varied by length of time in use (2/38, 5% <18 months; 4/14, 29% >18 months, P = 0.038) and to some extent, but non-significantly, by usage rates (4/22, 18% in monitors used more than once daily; 2/33, 6% in those used less frequently, P = 0.204). BP monitors within a pharmacy setting fail at similar rates to those in general practice. Annual calibration checks for blood pressure monitors are needed, even for new monitors, as these data indicate declining performance from 18 months onwards. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Psychology | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 June 2020.
All research outputs
#14,845,697
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#3,222
of 4,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,734
of 300,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#60
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 300,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.