Posted by Lou Pilder on February 7, 2008, at 19:48:45
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 PTony P,
I am unsure as to what you are wanting others here to think after reading your post and if it is concerning in any way the member PHillipa and what she posted here and was ostracized from the community for.
you wrote,[...my..wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings...my GP gave me his opinion that the automatic units on the upper arm are more reliable...after using a gifted arm unit, I am getting more reliable readings as by comparison with his office readings...]
I am unsure as to if the following that you wrote is a conclusion of some sort or not. You wrote,[...It really {does go to show} how carefull we must be with generalizations,"over" or not...].
In respect to your statement,[...My GP's opinion is that automatic units that go on the upper arm are {much more}relaible;
The grammatical structure of your statement could mean that the upper arm unit that is automatic is more reliable than the wrist unit that is automatic. Could you clarify if that is what you are wanting to mean here? If you could, then I could post a response.
In respect to your statement,[...It really does go to show that we must be carefull about generalizations, "over" or not...].
The grammatical structure of your statement has me wondering as to what particular generalization you are referring to. Is it the statement in your original post concerning the doctor? Or is it the statement by Phillipa? Or someone else's statement? Or something else?
Let us look at Phillipa's statement,[...the automatic ones...]. Here there is not a distinction given as to if she is meaning the wrist or the arm or both cuffs. But her structure of her statement could mean both. I do not know if your GP's original statement included both types.
As to if there is a distinction as to if the automatic cuffs have better accuracy if they are on the upper arm or the wrist, there is scientific research for that determination.
In the following research report, the conclusion was that;[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closly with the manual device than the arm device...]citation F2
In another research study, it is cited that the manual type is more accurate. citationF3
I am unsure as to after reading the research reports as to what you are wanting to mean here because you write about generalizing, even overgeneralizing.
To overgeneralize is generally accepted to mean that a statement is referring to an amount or degree too great to be reasonable. Could you incorporate my response to you here with clarification as to if your post has anything to do with what Phillipa was ostracized from this community for? If you could, then I could have the opportunity ot respond accordingly.
Lou
citation F2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4887NB5-14&_user...
citation F3
http://www.nature.com/jhh/journal/v16/n9/full/1001463a.html
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:810306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/811378.html