Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's request to Tony for clarification-bothinac

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 20:29:29

In reply to Re: Lou's request to Robert Hsiung-ddytkthtbdawy, posted by Tony P on February 7, 2008, at 17:08:21

> Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
>
> 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
>
> 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
>
> 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
>
> It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
>
> Tony P

Tony P,
Here is another research study concerning theautomatic blood pressure monitors
In this research study, both the arm type that was automatic and the automatic wrist type was used and the conclusion was that;
[...A large descrepancy in the estimated prevalence of blood pressure categories wa observed using two different automatic measurement devices. This emphasizes that prevalence estimates based on automatic devices should be considered with caution. citation F4
I am requesting that you read and use this research report in any reply that you may post to me.
Lou
http://www.bpmonitoring.com/pt/re/bmp/abstract.00126097-200404000-00001,htm

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:810306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/811394.html