To the Editor: In his letter1 regarding Heeley et al’s article on cardiovascular risk perception and evidence–practice gaps in Australian general practice,2 Radford quotes, “no [automated blood pressure-measuring machines] were accurate enough to ... replac[e] a manual sphygmomanometer”. The citation dates from 1973, when oscillometric blood pressure monitors such as the Omron HEM-907 — distributed by the High Blood Pressure Research Council of Australia (HBPRCA) with support from the Servier Foundation — did not exist. In defence of digital blood pressure devices, a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in Australian general practice has demonstrated their superiority compared with existing manual devices.3
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Radford PJ. Cardiovascular risk perception and evidence–practice gaps in Australian general practice [letter]. Med J Aust 2010; 193: 127. <MJA full text>
- 2. Heeley EL, Peiris DP, Patel AA, et al. Cardiovascular risk perception and evidence–practice gaps in Australian general practice (the AusHEART study). Med J Aust 2010; 192: 254-259. <MJA full text>
- 3. Nelson MR, Quinn S, Bowers-Ingram L, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial of oscillometric versus manual sphygmomanometer for blood pressure management in primary care (CRAB). Am J Hypertens 2009; 22: 598-603. doi: 10.1038/ajh.2009.55.
I have received grants from the Servier Foundation through an educational grant to the HBPRCA for the cluster randomised controlled trial of oscillometric versus manual sphygmomanometer for blood pressure management in primary care (CRAB) study, and from the HBPRCA for two qualitative studies on use of hypertensive medications in general practice.