Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blood pressure measurement in pediatric population: comparison between automated oscillometric devices and mercury sphygmomanometers—a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
European Journal of Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the progressive elimination of mercury column devices for blood pressure (BP) measurement in children and adolescents, valid alternatives are needed. Oscillometric devices provide a replacement without mercury, are fully automated, and have excellent reliability among evaluators. Here, the goal was to test the accuracy of automatic blood pressure monitor devices compared to the mercury sphygmomanometer for BP measurement in children and adolescents. Electronic databases are EMBASE, MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, and Web of Science. We selected 8974 potentially eligible articles and two authors independently. We separately reviewed 370 full papers. Potentially eligible articles were selected according to the following criteria: (a) articles published in Portuguese, English, and Spanish; (b) screening of titles; (c) screening of abstracts; and (d) retrieval and screening of the full article to determine whether it met the inclusion criteria. We included 45 articles for analysis, 28 of which were selected for meta-analysis. The systolic BP measured by automatic blood pressure monitors presents 1.17 mmHg on average (95% CI 0.85; 1.48); for diastolic BP, it produced −0.08 mmHg (95% CI −0.69; 0.54) compared with a mercury sphygmomanometer. There is high heterogeneity between studies (> 90%) in the meta-analysis, partly explained by the device model, study environment, and observer training. Only articles that reported BP measurement by both methods were included.

Conclusion: Automatic blood pressure monitors have strong measurement validity when compared with the mercury column. Thus, these can be safely used in blood pressure measurements of children and adolescents in clinical and epidemiological studies.

What is Known:

•The “gold standard” for indirect BP measurement is the mercury sphygmomanometer.

•The accuracy of the automatic device is critical to any blood pressure measurement method.

What is New:

•Oscillometric or automatic devices can be a suitable alternative to auscultation for initial screening, consistent with current pediatric guidelines.

•The automatic devices compared to the mercury column have a good validity of measurements, which can be used in blood pressure measurements of children and adolescents in clinical and epidemiological settings, provided that international protocols are followed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The data generated and analyzed during the current study were extracted from published paper and are available in several scientific journals. The dataset used in the meta-analysis is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AHA:

American Heart Association

BP:

Blood pressure

DBP:

Diastolic blood pressure

EHS:

European Hypertension Society

HHS:

British Hypertension Society

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PROSPERO:

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

SBP:

Systolic blood pressure

References  

  1. Lessa I (2004) Chronic non-communicable diseases in Brazil: a challenge for the complex task of surveillance. Ciênc Saúde Colet 9(4):931–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Malachias MV et al (2016) 7th Brazilian Guideline of Arterial Hypertension. Arq Bras Cardiol. Sep;107. https://doi.org/10.5935/abc.20160140

  3. De Moraes ACF, Lacerda MB, Moreno LA, Horta BL, Carvalho HB (2014) Prevalence of high blood pressure in 122, 053 adolescents: a systematic review and meta-regression. Medicine (United States) 93(27)

  4. Falkner B (2010) Hypertension in children and adolescents: epidemiology and natural history. Pediatr Nephrol 25:1219–1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen X, Wang Y (2008) Tracking blood pressure from childhood to adulthood: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Circulation 117:3171–3180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bao W, Threefoot SA, Srinivasan SR, Berenson GS (1995) Essential hypertension predicted by tracking of elevated blood pressure from childhood to adulthood: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Am J Hypertens 8:657–665

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Children, Adolescents (2004) The fourth report on the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 114:555–576

  8. Lurbe E, Cifkova R, Cruickshank JK, Dillon MJ, Ferreira I, Invitti C et al (2009) Management of high blood pressure in children and adolescents: recommendations of the European Society of Hypertension. J Hypertens 27:1719–1742

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones DW, Appel LJ, Sheps SG, Roccella EJ, Lenfant C (2003) Measuring blood pressure accurately: new and persistent challenges. JAMA 289:1027–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hla KM, Vokaty KA, Feussner JR (1986) Observer error in systolic blood pressure measurement in the elderly. A case for automatic recorders? Arch Intern Med 146:2373–2376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Daskalopoulou SS, Rabi DM, Zarnke KB, Dasgupta K, Nerenberg K, Cloutier L et al (2015) The 2015 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Can J Cardiol 31:549–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Araújo-Moura K, De Moraes ACF, Forkert ECO, Berg G, Cucato GG, Forjaz CLM, Moliterno P, Gaitan-Charry D, Delgado CA, González-Gil EM, Moreno LA, Carvalho HB, Torres-Leal FL (2018) Is the measurement of blood pressure by automatic monitor in the South American pediatric population accurate? SAYCARE Study Obesity (Silver Spring) 26(Suppl 1):S41–S46. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22119 (PMID: 29464919)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stergiou GS, Boubouchairopoulou N, Kollias A (2017) Accuracy of automated blood pressure measurement in children: evidence, issues, and perspectives. Hypertension 69:1000–1006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Balestrieri E, Rapuano S (2010) Instruments and methods for calibration of oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 59:2391–2404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 64:407–15

  16. Kamath N, Goud BR, Phadke KD, Iyengar A (2012) Use of oscillometric devices for the measurement of blood pressure-comparison with the gold standard. Indian J Pediatr 79(9):1230-1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-011-0600-0 Epub 2011 Nov 5

  17. Luyan W (2014) GW25-e4192 Comparison of digital blood pressure device and mercury sphygmomanometers. J Am Coll Cardiol 16_Supplement. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.831

  18. Redwine KM, James LP, O'Riordan M, Sullivan JE, Blumer JL (2015) Network of Pediatric Pharmacology Research Units. Accuracy of the Spacelabs 90217 ambulatory blood pressure monitor in a pediatric population. Blood Press Monit 20(5):295–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MBP.0000000000000132

  19. Ling J, Ohara Y, Orime Y, Noon GP, Takatani S (1995) Clinical evaluation of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor in adults and children based on the 1992 AAMI SP-10 standards. J Clin Monit 11(2):123-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01617734

  20. Stergiou GS, Yiannes NG, Rarra VC (2006) Validation of the Omron 705 IT oscillometric device for home blood pressure measurement in children and adolescents: the Arsakion School Study. Blood Press Monit 11(4):229:234. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mbp.0000209074.3833116

  21. Midgley PC, Wardhaugh B, Macfarlane C, Magowan R, Kelnar CJ (2009) Blood pressure in children aged 4–8 years: comparison of Omron HEM 711 and sphygmomanometer blood pressure measurements. Arch Dis Child 94(12):955-958. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.137059

  22. Butani L, Morgenstern BZ (2003) Are pitfalls of oscillometric blood pressure measurements preventable in children? Pediatr Nephrol 18:313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. O’Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N et al (1996) Evaluation of three devices for eel-measurement of blood pressure according to the revised British Hypertension Society Protocol: the Omron HEM-705CP, Philips HP5332, and Neissei DS- 175. Blood Press Monit 1:55–61

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Brien E, Petrie J, Littler WA et al (1990) The British Hypertension Society Protocol for the evaluation of automated and semi-automated blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory systems. J Hypertens 8(7):607–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lurbe E, Agabiti-Rosei E, Cruickshank JK, Dominiczak A, Erdine S et al (2016) European Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. J Hypertens 34(10):1887-1920

  26. Flynn JT, Kaelber DC, Baker-Smith CM et al (2017) Subcommittee on Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children. Clinical Practice Guideline for Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics 140(3):e20171904

  27. Kaufmann MA, Pargger H, Drop LJ (1996) Oscillometric blood pressure measurements by different devices are not interchangeable. Anesth Analg 82:377–381

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Brien E, Atkins N (1997) Accuracy of the Dinamap portable monitor, model 8100: a review of the evidence for accuracy. Blood Press Monit 2:31–33

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Brien E, O’Malley K (1990) Evaluation of blood pressure measuring devices with special reference to ambulatory systems. J Hypertens Suppl 8:S133–S139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lurbe E (2013) Ambulatory blood pressure in children: confidence and wisdom. J Hypertens 31:2125–2127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Carvalho HB, Moreno LA, Silva AM et al (2018) Design and objectives of the South American Youth/Child Cardiovascular and Environmental (SAYCARE) study. Obesity (Silver Spring) 26(suppl 1):S14–S22

    Google Scholar 

  32. Duncombe SL, Voss C, Harris KC (2017) Oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement methods in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens 2 ;35(2):213–224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0000000000001178. PMID: 27870656

  33. Neuhauser HK, Thamm M, Ellert U, Hense HW, Rosario AS (2011) Blood pressure percentiles by age and height from nonoverweight children and adolescents in Germany. Pediatrics 127:e978-988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Matsuoka S, Awazu M (2004) Masked hypertension in children and young adults. Pediatr Nephrol 19:651–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith GR (2000) Devices for blood pressure measurement. Prof Nurse 15(337–340):13

    Google Scholar 

  36. Park MK, Menard SM (1989) Normative oscillometric blood pressure values in the first 5 years in an office setting. Am J Dis Child 143:860–864

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Freedman DS, Foltz JL, Berenson GS (2014) Differences between the fourth and fifth Korotkoff phases among children and adolescents. Am J Hypertens 27:1495–1502

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis: John Wiley & Sons; Chapter 20, Meta-regression; p. 187–203

  40. Pereira GM, Galvão FT (2014) Heterogeneity and publication bias in systematic reviews. Epidemiol Serv Saúd:775–778

  41. Moyer VA (2013) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for primary hypertension in children and adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 159:613–619

  42. Krist AH, Davidson KW et al (2020) US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 10;324(18):1878–1883

  43. Lewis MN, Shatat IF, Phillips SM (2017) Screening for hypertension in children and adolescents: methodology and current practice recommendations. Front Pediatr 15(5):51

  44. Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner BE, Graves J, Hill MN et al (2005) Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the subcommittee of professional and public education of the American Heart Association Council on high blood pressure research. Circulation 111:697–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Narogan MV, Narogan MI, Syutkina EV (2009) Validation of A&D UA-778 blood pressure monitors in children. Blood Press Monit 14(5):228-231 https://doi.org/10.1097/mbp.0b013e328330eeb2 PMID: 19938323

Download references

Funding

Study researchers were supported for interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript. Keisyanne Araujo‐Moura was given a PhD student scholarship from São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (proc. 2019/24224‐1). Letícia Gabrielle Souza was given a scientific initiation scholarship on nutrition undergraduate student at School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. FAPESP (proc. 019/13527–3). Gabriele Luz Mello was given a scientific initiation scholarship on nutrition undergraduate student at School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil FAPESP (proc. 2019/10852–0). Augusto César F. De Moraes was awarded by the Young Investigator grant from FAPESP (proc. 2017/20317–0 and 2019/02617–1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate Program in Public Health and Graduate Program in Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, 01246-904, Brazil

    Keisyanne Araujo-Moura, Letícia Gabrielle Souza, Gabriele Luz Mello & Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes

  2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Human Genetics and Environmental Science, Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes

  3. YCARE (Youth/Child cARdiovascular Risk and Environmental) Research Group, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Keisyanne Araujo-Moura, Letícia Gabrielle Souza, Gabriele Luz Mello & Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes

Authors
  1. Keisyanne Araujo-Moura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Letícia Gabrielle Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriele Luz Mello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MSc PhD Keisyanne de Araujo-Moura conceptualized and designed the initial study. In addition, she designed the data collection instruments, performed the initial analysis, wrote the initial manuscript, and revised the manuscript. Dr. Augusto César Ferreira de Moraes conceptualized and designed the initial study. He coordinated and supervised the data and critically reviewed the manuscript for content. Bs Letícia Gabrielle Souza and Bs Gabriele de Luz Mello searched the articles and extracted the data. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keisyanne Araujo-Moura.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This article is a systematic review and does not contain participating humans or animals evaluated by the authors, and because of this reason, our institution does not require that it be approved by the ethics committee. Meanwhile, the protocol was approved by the PROSPERO committee on the protocol (CRD42018110330).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 439 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Araujo-Moura, K., Souza, L.G., Mello, G.L. et al. Blood pressure measurement in pediatric population: comparison between automated oscillometric devices and mercury sphygmomanometers—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr 181, 9–22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04171-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04171-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation