Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Differences in oscillometric blood pressure readings between unsupported and supported back conditions

Hypertension Research volume 44, pages 528–532 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Appropriate body posture is important for accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement. However, the impact of an unsupported back on BP readings is currently controversial. This study included 224 subjects (18–86 years old, 54.5 ± 15.5 years old, 105 males). BP was measured with an oscillometric BP device randomly following one of two protocols for back support conditions: (1) supported–unsupported–supported–unsupported, or (2) unsupported–supported–unsupported–supported. The average of the two systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) readings in the same position was recorded as the final BP value. The differences in BP between the unsupported and supported back conditions were calculated as delta BP. Moreover, the percentage variation in BP (PV) was calculated with the formula delta BP/BP with an unsupported back. Multivariable regression analysis evaluated the impact of age, sex, hypertension history and supported BP level on PV. The SBP/DBP levels measured with an unsupported back were slightly higher than those when the back was supported (132.7 ± 19.5/79.6 ± 12.9 mmHg vs. 130.3 ± 20.0/78.5 ± 14.3 mmHg), and the delta SBP (2.3 mmHg) was statistically significant. The multivariable regression analysis showed that age was a positive factor but supported SBP level as a negative factor for systolic PV, while age and supported DBP level were positive factors, but hypertension history was a negative factor for diastolic PV. For a group participant, the mean difference in oscillometric SBP/DBP in the unsupported back position was 2.3/1.0 mmHg higher than that in the supported back position.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campbell NRC, Padwal R, Picone DS, Su H, Sharman JE. The impact of small to moderate inaccuracies in assessing blood pressure on hypertension prevalence and control rates. J Clin Hypertens. 2020;22:939–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kallioinen N, Hill A, Horswill MS, Ward HE, Watson MO. Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients’ resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review. J Hypertens. 2017;35:421–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cushman WC, Cooper KM, Horne RA, Meydrech EF. Effect of back support and stethoscope head on seated blood pressure determinations. Am J Hypertens. 1990;3:240–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Handler J. The importance of accurate blood pressure measurement. Perm J. 2009;13:51–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tolonen H, Koponen P, Naska A, Männistö S, Broda G, Palosaari T, et al. Challenges in standardization of blood pressure measurement at the population level. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ringrose JS, Wong J, Yousefi F, Padwal R. The effect of back and feet support on oscillometric blood pressure measurements. Blood Press Monit. 2017;22:213–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu LS. 2018 Chinese guidelines for the management of hypertension. Chin J Cardiovasc Med. 2019;24:1–46.

  8. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA. guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Hypertension. 2017;71:e13–115.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A. Use of automated office blood pressure measurement to reduce the white coat response. J Hypertens. 2009;27:280–6.

  10. Andersson BJ, Ortengren R, Nachemson AL, Elfström G, Broman H. The sitting posture: an electromyographic and discometric study. Orthop Clin North Am Actions. 1975;6:105–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Makhsous M, Lin F, Hendrix RW, Hepler M, Zhang LQ, Makhsous M, et al. Sitting with adjustable ischial and back supports: biomechanical changes. Spine. 2003;28:1113–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Watanabe S, Eguchi A, Kobara K, Ishida H, Watanabe S, et al. Influence of trunk muscle co-contraction on spinal curvature during sitting reclining against the backrest of a chair. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;48:359–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Li CT, Chen YN, Tseng YT, Tsai KH, Li CT, et al. Biomechanical analysis of different dynamic sitting techniques: an exploratory study. Biomed Eng Online. 2019;18:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jia B, Nussbaum MA, Jia B, et al. Influences of continuous sitting and psychosocial stress on low back kinematics, kinetics, discomfort, and localized muscle fatigue during unsupported sitting activities. Ergonomics. 2018;61:1671–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong AYL, Chan TPM, Chau AWM, Tung Cheung H, Kwan KCK, et al. Do different sitting postures affect spinal biomechanics of asymptomatic individuals? Gait Posture. 2019;67:230–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell NRC, Padwal R, Picone DS, Su H, Sharman JE. The impact of small to moderate inaccuracies in assessing blood pressure on hypertension prevalence and control rates. J Clin Hypertens. 2020;22:939–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Tai-xuan Wan, Yuan-hao Wu

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital and the Second Clinical Medical College, Nanchang University, No 1 Minde Road, Nanchang, 330006, China

    Tai-xuan Wan, Yuan-hao Wu, Yan-qing Wu, Weitong Hu & Hai Su

  2. Queen Mary College of Medical College, Nanchang University, No 461 Bayi avenue, Nanchang, 330006, China

    Tai-xuan Wan

Authors
  1. Tai-xuan Wan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuan-hao Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan-qing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Weitong Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hai Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hai Su.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wan, Tx., Wu, Yh., Wu, Yq. et al. Differences in oscillometric blood pressure readings between unsupported and supported back conditions. Hypertens Res 44, 528–532 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-020-00595-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41440-020-00595-w

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links