{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029019607843137254, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010980392156862745, 'mean_word_length': 5.4120603015075375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Evaluation of Two Indirect Methods of Blood Pressure Measurement in Ill Patients

Direct (intraarterial) and two indirect (using a mercury sphygmomanometer [MS] and an automatic [auscultatory] device) methods of blood pressure measurement were compared in intensive care patients (N = 32). One trained observer blind to both automatic and direct measurements obtained all indirect MS measurements. All direct and indirect measurements were made on the same arm. Direct measurements were obtained from 10-second strip chart recordings. In normotensive patients both indirect measurements of systolic blood pressure (SBP) underestimated the direct SBP; however, only the SBP value obtained with the automatic device (106 mm Hg) was significantly different, p < .05, from the direct SBP value (120 mm Hg). No significant difference was noted between methods in measurement of normotensive diastolic blood pressure. In hypertensive patients direct SBP was significantly greater, p < .05, from both values obtained by indirect measurement. In patients without hypotension the automatic device may be substituted for the MS and direct blood pressure methods. The automatic device may offer the advantage of decreasing observer bias and variability in blood pressure measurement.