↓ Skip to main content

Effect of respiratory pattern on automated clinical blood pressure measurement: an observational study with normotensive subjects

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Hypertension, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of respiratory pattern on automated clinical blood pressure measurement: an observational study with normotensive subjects
Published in
Clinical Hypertension, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40885-017-0071-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Herakova, Nnenna Harmony Nzeribe Nwobodo, Ying Wang, Fei Chen, Dingchang Zheng

Abstract

It has been reported that deep breathing could reduce blood pressures (BP) in general. It is also known that BP is decreased during inhalation and increased during exhalation. Therefore, the measured BPs could be potentially different during deep breathing with different lengths of inhalation and exhalation. This study aimed to quantitatively investigate the effect of different respiratory patterns on BPs. Forty healthy subjects (20 males and 20 females, aged from 18 to 60 years) were recruited. Systolic and diastolic BPs (SBP and DBP) were measured using a clinically validated automated BP device. There were two repeated measurement sessions for each subject. Within each session, eight BP measurements were performed, including 4 measurements during deep breathing with different respiratory patterns (Pattern 1: 4.5 s vs 4.5 s; Patter 2: 6 s vs 2 s; Pattern 3: 2 s vs 6 s; and Pattern 4: 1.5 s vs 1.5 s, respectively for the durations of inhalation and exhalation) and additional 4 measurements from 1 min after the four different respiratory patterns. At the beginning and end of the two repeated measurement sessions, there were two baseline BP measurements under resting condition. The key experimental results showed that overall automated SBP significantly decreased by 3.7 ± 5.7 mmHg, 3.9 ± 5.2 mmHg, 1.7 ± 5.9 mmHg and 3.3 ± 5.3 mmHg during deep breathing, respectively for Patterns 1, 2, 3 and 4 (all p < 0.001 except p < 0.05 for Pattern 3). Similarly, the automated DBPs during deep breathing in pattern 1, 2 and 4 decreased by 3.7 ± 5.0 mmHg, 3.7 ± 4.9 mmHg and 4.6 ± 3.9 mmHg respectively (all p < 0.001, except in Pattern 3 with a decrease of 1.0 ± 4.3 mmHg, p = 0.14). Correspondingly, after deep breathing, automated BPs recovered back to normal with no significant difference in comparison with baseline BP (all p > 0.05, except for SBP in Pattern 4). In summary, this study has quantitatively demonstrated that the measured automated BPs decreased by different amounts with all the four deep breathing patterns, which recovered back quickly after these single short-term interventions, providing evidence of short-term BP decrease with deep breathing and that BP measurements should be performed under normal breathing condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 26 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Engineering 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Computer Science 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 24 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2023.
All research outputs
#8,264,793
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Hypertension
#25
of 98 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,692
of 325,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Hypertension
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them