[01] Ju Yang Chong, Faculty of Medicine, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Melaka, Malaysia. [02] Zi Ling Quek, Faculty of Medicine, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Melaka, Malaysia. [03] Darshini Thanapalan, Faculty of Medicine, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Melaka, Malaysia. [04] Yaganraj Rajasekharan, Faculty of Medicine, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Melaka, Malaysia. [05] Archanah Nair, Faculty of Medicine, Melaka Manipal Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Melaka, Malaysia.

Objective: To compare the readings of automated and aneroid devices to the gold standard apparatus, mercury sphygmomanometer in taking blood pressure measurements. Design: Sample data were collected by measuring blood pressure of volunteers. Three systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measurements were taken by 2 observers using the 3 devices as mentioned. Setting: This study was conducted at Melaka Manipal Medical College (MMMC), a tertiary institution placed in Melaka and Muar, Malaysia, from December 2017 to February 2018. Subjects: The total number of participants was 115, including 46 males and 69 females (age range 18-35). Analysis: Statistical analyses including the Epi Info 7, Pearson Correlation Coefficient calculator and Bland- Altman plot in Excel. Results: The systolic blood pressure measurements of mercury and digital sphygmomanometer has a significantly high correlation, and significantly moderate correlation for diastolic blood pressure measurements. Upon plotting Bland and Altman plot, 95% of the results are within the ±2 standard deviation for both systolic and diastolic BP, hence it is significant. While the systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements of mercury and aneroid sphygmomanometer were highly correlated, hence with a significant association. Subsequent to plotting the Bland and Altman plot, 95% of the result falls between ±2 standard deviation for both systolic and diastolic BP, proved it is significant. Conclusion: Hence, these proves a good agreement. Therefore, for those who do not acquire the skill of measuring BP using the standard method could utilize the digital device which is more convenient and easier to record the BP readings. While for aneroid sphygmomanometer, it is more environmental friendly compared to mercury sphygmomanometer and it can help in preventing mercury poisoning in hospital setting. However, mercury sphygmomanometer is still the gold standard for BP measurements. This study’s findings will be a useful resource for diagnosing hypertension research in Malaysia.

Blood Pressure, Sphygmomanometer, Mercury, Medical Students

[01] Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Hypertension (2013). 2012 annual report of Malaysian Society of Hypertension. Retrieved from: http://www.moh.gov.my/penerbitan/CPG2017/Hypertension1.pdf [02] Pickering TG, Hall JE, Appel LJ, Falkner BE, Graves J, Hill MN, et al. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans 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. Hypertension 45 (1): 142–61. 2005. [03] Myers MG, Valdivieso MA. Use of an automated blood pressure recording device, the BpTRU, to reduce the “white coat effect” in routine practice. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16: 494–497. [04] Muniswamy S, Kenchanna US. Comparison of automated and mercury blood pressure measurement among pregnant women in rural healthcare settings. J. Evid. Based Med. Healthc. 2017; 4 (36), 2164-2167. [05] Cifkova R, Erdine S, Fagard R, Farsang C, Heagerty AM, Kiowski W, Kjeldsen S, Luscher T, Mallion JM, Mancia G, Poulter N, Rahn KH, Rodicio JL, Ruilope LM, van Zwieten P, Waeber B, Williams B, Zanchetti A; ESH/ESC Hypertension Guidelines Committee. Practice guidelines for primary care physicians: 2003 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines. J Hypertens. 2003; 21: 1779–1786. [06] Martin G. Myers. Canada. Comparison Between an Automated and Manual Sphygmomanometer in a Population Survey. Am J Hypertens 2008; 21: 280-283 © 2008 American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. [07] Perloff D, Grim C, Flack J, Frohlich ED, Hill M, McDonald M, Morgenstern BZ. Human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometry. Circulation. 1993; 88 (5 Pt 1): 2460–2470. [08] Walter M. Kirkendal, CHAIRMAN, Alan C. Burton, PH.D., Frederick H. Epstein, M. D., and Edward D. Freis, Recommendations for Human Blood Pressure Determination by Sphygmomanometers. 1967; 36: 980-988. [09] Ostchega Y, Zhang G, Sorlie P, et al. Blood pressure randomized methodology study comparing automatic oscillometric and mercury sphygmomanometer devices: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2010. National health statistics reports; no 59. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2012. [10] Turner MJ, Van Schalkwyk JM. Automated sphygmomanometers should not replace manual ones, based on current evidence. Am J Hypertens 2008; 21 (8): 845. [11] Bovet P, Gervasoni JP, Ross AG, et al. Assessing the prevalence of hypertension in populations: are we doing it right? Jhypertens 2003; 21 (3): 509-517. [12] Ostchega Y, Nwankwo T, Sorlie PD, et al. Assessing the validity of the omron HEM-907XL oscillometric blood pressure measurement device in a national survey environment. J ClinHypertens (Greenwich) 2010; 12 (1): 22-28. [13] Clinical Practice Guidelines On Management of Obesity 2003. Definition of Obesity: Classification of weight by BMI: Academy of Medicine of Malaysia, 2003. [14] Ostchega Y, Prineas R. J, Nwankwo T, Zipf G. Assessing Blood Pressure Accuracy of an Aneroid Sphygmomanometer in a National Survey Environment. American Journal of Hypertension: 2011; 24 (3) 322-327. [15] Wong, Sik-Nin; Tz Sung, Rita Yn; Leung, Lettie Chuk-Kwan. Validation of three oscillometric blood pressure devices against auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer in children. Blood Pressure Monitoring: October 2006; 11 (5) 281-291. [16] Mary E. Barker, Alistair W. Shiell, Catherine L. Law. Evaluation of the Dinamap 8100 and Omron M1 blood pressure monitors for use in children. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2004; Volume 14: 179-186. [17] El Assaad MA, Topouchian JA, Darné BM, Asmar RG. Validation of the Omron HEM–907 device for blood pressure measurement. Blood Press Monit 7 (4): 237–41. 2002. [18] Ombani S, Riva I, Giglio A, Caldara G, Groppelli A, Parati G. Validation of the Omron M5–I, R5–I and HEM–907 automated blood pressure monitors in elderly individuals according to the international protocol of the European Society of Hypertension. Blood Press Monit 12 (4): 233-42. 2007. [19] White WB, Anwar YA. Evaluation of the overall efficacy of the Omron office digital blood pressure HEM–907 monitor in adults. Blood Press Monit 6 (2): 107–10. 2001. [20] Yusof M. Sphygmomanometer for Children. Health Technology Assessment Unit Medical Development Division Ministry Of Health Malaysia. 016/07. 2007. [21] Eilertsen E, Humerfelt S. The observer variation in the measurement of arterial blood pressure. Acta Med Scand 1968; 184: 145–7. Ayman P, Goldshine AD. Blood. [22] Canzanello VJ, Jensen PL, Schwartz GL. Are aneroid sphygmomanometers accurate in hospital and clinic settings? Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 729–731. [23] Burke MJ, Towers HM, O’Malley K, Fitzgerald DJ, O’Brien ET. Sphygmomanometers in hospital and family practice: problems and recommendations. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 285: 469–71. [24] Padfield PL, Jyothinagaram SG, Watson DM, Donald P, McGinley IM. Problems in the measurement of blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens 1990; 4 (Suppl 2): 3–7. [25] Markandu NDWhitcher FArnold ACarney C. The mercury sphygmomanometer should be abandoned before it is proscribed. J Hum Hypertens 2000; 14: 31–36. [26] Burke MJ, Towers HM, O’Malley K, Fitzgerald DJ, O’Brien ET. Sphygmomanometers in hospital and family practice: problems and recommendations. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 285: 469–71.