↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of monitors used for blood pressure checks in English retail pharmacies: a cross-sectional observational study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%

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
#9,658,384
of 15,757,766 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,409
of 3,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,303
of 266,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#52
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,757,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 266,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.