Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
190,851 studies31 sourcesUpdated 46 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0The Journal of Clinical Hypertension

Accuracy Evaluation of the Omron HEM‐7120 Automated Oscillometric Upper‐arm Home Blood Pressure Monitor in Children and Adolescents Using the AAMI/ESH/ISO 81060–2:2018 Numerical Criteria

  1. 1Division of Nephrology Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand

Abstract

This study evaluated the Omron HEM‐7120 automated oscillometric upper‐arm home blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents against the numerical accuracy criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard. Test readings were compared with mercury auscultatory readings from two physicians using the same‐arm sequential method. Three cuffs covered arm circumferences of 12–18, 17–22, and 22–32 cm. Of 90 participants, 85 were analyzed, yielding 255 comparisons. Mean differences were −4.0 ± 5.94 mmHg for systolic and −1.8 ± 7.20 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure, meeting Criterion 1. Participant standard deviations were 5.07 and 6.48 mmHg, below Criterion 2 limits. However, the requirements regarding age, reference‐blood‐pressure and cuff distributions, reference‐measurement variability, and observer qualification were not fully met. The device met numerical criteria in this cohort, but it is not fully validated under the Universal Standard.

Related

  1. Feasibility and placement accuracy of a sensor-guided intraosseous device with an automated stop in a small-bone rat cadaver model: a single-arm pilot study
    Markus Ortner, Clemens Hacker, Alexandra Kaider +5
    Resuscitation plusPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  2. Automated Sleep Staging Performance Across Two Experimental Sleep Manipulation Protocols in Adolescents.
    J. P. Lima Santos, L. Evans, R. L. Griffith +4
    medRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textEpidemiology & public healthmedRxiv
  3. The Impact of Bias Mitigation on Fairness and Accuracy in Automated Skin Lesion Classification
    Matheus B. Rocha, Renato A. Krohling
    Journal of healthcare informatics researchPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textOncologyEurope PMCPMC
  4. Effectiveness and retention of learning the use of an automated external defibrillator in adolescents: a comparative analysis of three teaching methods.
    Marcos Mecías-Calvo, Rubén Navarro-Patón
    Health education researchPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. Continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery, and remote care in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: advances toward integrated digital management
    Ying Jia, Qidi Liu
    Frontiers in EndocrinologyPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Endocrinology & metabolismCrossref
BibTeX
@article{pisithkul2026accuracy,
  title = {{Accuracy Evaluation of the Omron HEM‐7120 Automated Oscillometric Upper‐arm Home Blood Pressure Monitor in Children and Adolescents Using the AAMI/ESH/ISO 81060–2:2018 Numerical Criteria}},
  author = {Tipanan Pisithkul and Kwanchai Pirojsakul},
  journal = {The Journal of Clinical Hypertension},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1111/jch.70370},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.70370},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Accuracy Evaluation of the Omron HEM‐7120 Automated Oscillometric Upper‐arm Home Blood Pressure Monitor in Children and Adolescents Using the AAMI/ESH/ISO 81060–2:2018 Numerical Criteria
AU  - Tipanan Pisithkul
AU  - Kwanchai Pirojsakul
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/27
JO  - The Journal of Clinical Hypertension
DO  - 10.1111/jch.70370
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.70370
AB  - This study evaluated the Omron HEM‐7120 automated oscillometric upper‐arm home blood pressure monitor in children and adolescents against the numerical accuracy criteria of the AAMI/ESH/ISO Universal Standard. Test readings were compared with mercury auscultatory readings from two physicians using the same‐arm sequential method. Three cuffs covered arm circumferences of 12–18, 17–22, and 22–32 cm. Of 90 participants, 85 were analyzed, yielding 255 comparisons. Mean differences were −4.0 ± 5.94 mmHg for systolic and −1.8 ± 7.20 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure, meeting Criterion 1. Participant standard deviations were 5.07 and 6.48 mmHg, below Criterion 2 limits. However, the requirements regarding age, reference‐blood‐pressure and cuff distributions, reference‐measurement variability, and observer qualification were not fully met. The device met numerical criteria in this cohort, but it is not fully validated under the Universal Standard.
SN  - 1524-6175
SN  - 1751-7176
ER  -