At 13:54 06/06/2017, Paul Ashton wrote:
>Martin -- is it not also the case that the wrist monitors, like the
>one shown in John B's photo, are less reliable/accurate than the arm monitors?
I'll be interested to hear what Martin says. Anatomically, what you
suggest would make a lot of sense, in that arteries at the wrist are
much more potentially 'protected' (from the pressure exerted by a
sphygmomanometer cuff), by bones, than is the case in the
arm. Intuitively, I would therefore suspect that monitors using
wrist cuffs might tend to give high readings.
Kind Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|