Back to Browse Journals » Vascular Health and Risk Management » Volume 7

Validation of four automatic devices for self-measurement of blood pressure according to the international protocol of the European Society of Hypertension

Authors Topouchian J, Agnoletti D, Blacher J, Youssef A, Ibanez I, Khabouth J, Khawaja S, Beaino L, Asmar R

Published Date November 2011 Volume 2011:7 Pages 709—717


Published 30 November 2011

Jirar Topouchian1, Davide Agnoletti1, Jacques Blacher1, Ahmed Youssef1, Isabel Ibanez2,3, Jose Khabouth2, Salwa Khawaja2, Layale Beaino2, Roland Asmar1–3
1Centre de Diagnostic, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Paris, France; 2Hôpital Libanais and Faculté Libanaise de Médecine, Beirut, Lebanon; 3Foundation-Medical Research Institutes, Geneva, Switzerland

Background: Four oscillometric devices for self-measurement of blood pressure (SBPM) were evaluated according to the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) international protocol and its 2010 revision in four separate studies. The Omron® M2, Omron M3, and Omron M6 measure blood pressure (BP) at the brachial level, while the Omron R2 measures BP at the wrist level.
Methods: The international protocol requires a total number of 33 subjects in which the validation is performed. The Omron M2 and Omron R2 were validated in 2009 according to the ESH international protocol, while the Omron M3 and Omron M6 were validated in 2010–2011 according to the 2010 ESH international protocol revision. The protocol procedures were followed precisely.
Results: All four tested devices passed the validation process. The mean differences between the device and mercury readings were 2.7 ± 5.0 and –1.4 ± 3.2 mmHg for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively, using the Omron M2 device, and 1.7 ± 3.2 and –0.9 ± 2.6 mmHg using the Omron M3, 1.6 ± 2.9 and -0.9 ± 2.5 mmHg using the Omron M6, and –1.1 ± 4.8 and –0.9 ± 4.3 mmHg using the Omron R2.
Conclusion: Readings from the Omron M2, Omron M3, Omron M6, and Omron R2, differing by less than 5, 10, and 15 mmHg, fulfill the ESH international protocol and its 2010 revision requirements. Therefore, each of these four devices can be used by patients for SBPM.

Keywords: Omron R2, M2, M3, M6, blood pressure measurement, validation, international protocol, European Society of Hypertension

Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML] 

Creative Commons License This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at:

Readers of this article also read:

Benefits of once-daily therapies in the treatment of hypertension

Flack JM, Nasser SA

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2011, 7:777-787

Published Date: 21 December 2011

Critical review of cancer risk associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy

Wuerzner G, Burnier M, Waeber B

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2011, 7:741-747

Published Date: 12 December 2011

Troponin elevation in conditions other than acute coronary syndromes

Tanindi A, Cemri M

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2011, 7:597-603

Published Date: 22 September 2011

The causes, consequences, and treatment of left or right heart failure

Pazos-Lopez P, Peteiro-Vazquez J, Garcia-Campos A, Garcia-Bueno L, Abugattas-de-Torres JP, Castro-Beiras A

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2011, 7:237-254

Published Date: 4 April 2011

The pathology and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias: focus on atrial fibrillation

Schmidt C, Kisselbach J, Schweizer PA, Katus HA, Thomas D

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2011, 7:193-202

Published Date: 31 March 2011

Role of aliskiren in cardio-renal protection and use in hypertensives with multiple risk factors

Eduardo Pimenta, Suzanne Oparil

Vascular Health and Risk Management 2009, 5:453-463

Published Date: 19 May 2009