This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blood pressure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Blood pressure was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Blood pressure.
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
"The clear trend from double blind clinical trials (for the better strategies and agents) has increasingly been that lower BP is found to result in less disease".
Footnote 1 is not linking to a PDF document anymore 210.9.143.73 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
BLOOD PRESSURE IS SOMETIMES CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET ANGRY AND THEIR BLOOD PRESSURE GETS HIGH.ALSO BIG/FAT PEOPLE HAS THIS AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE MEDICINE, BUT SOMETIMES THEY GET SO MAD THEY HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE SOMETIMES.IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON.BLOOD PRESSURE IS CALL BY OTHER THINGS BUT MOSTLY THAT .
Omg...you are a complete idiot. All the nurses I work with, and myself included, are laughing our hind ends off.
If in 95% of the time medical science does not know what causes high blood pressure, how can you say it isn't caused by something. WSNRFN ( talk)WSNRFN —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC).
Let's say that I kill 100 idiots. For five of them, I poison them with a common toxic, but for the other 95, I cut their heads off with some unknown, but sharp object. One would be quite accurate in saying that we don't know what killed 95% of the idiots, but it wasn't electrocution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.159.216 ( talk) 01:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a correlation or ratio betweem systolic and diastolic components of blood pressure?
Is the ideal blood pressure the same for everyone or is it different for youth or kids? I'm seventeen and I got 120/60 which according to the nurse was "Perfect!"(this was during "conscription"). So, is there any diffrence?-- 84.217.120.7 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
HI,I dont understand my blood pressure reading. I have looked at many charts and it doesnt seem to fit. As of late its been 111/44 wich seems ok, but the last two times its been 114/90 and 119/101..I am only 27,and it said that the systolic should go up.. I really am confused..
68.226.14.152 (
talk) 08:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
How does sleep effect your blood pressure? what can happen to you with high blood pressure
The larger arteries, including all large enough to see without magnification, are low resistance (assuming no advanced atherosclerotic changes) and conduit vessels with high flow rates but producing very little pressure drop. For instance, about 5 mmHg mean pressure decrease in the blood flow traveling from the heart all the way to the toes is typical, assuming the individual is supine (horizontal with respect to gravity).
This paragraph is icomplete without some mention of how far the blood pressure falls through the capillaries; the readers deserve context to compare that 5 mmHg figure to. As it is now, scientifically rigorous readers need to scroll all the way down the page to find out that blood returns to the heart at about 5 total mmHg. (I guess that means a drop of ca. 65 mmHg in the capillaries and 5 mmHg in the veins? 5+5+5+65=80?) Doops | talk 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Causes of high blood pressure may be, as I understand it, one or more of flow constriction(s), amount of blood and viscosity. Besides the possiblity of dietary salt increasing amount of blood, are there any dietary or drug factors that are believed to affect esp. viscosity [considering that high vicosity could possibly a cause of TIA by starvation rather than hæmorrhage]. If so, would heavy exercise enhance or mitigate the factors?
L-- 202.164.205.125 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
How does Blood Pressure vary with age?
I think we should add a information about classification of blood pressure. We could adopt the data from [4] (for adults, taken from [5]), but I think a chart such as the upper figure in [6] is easier to understand (note, however, that this figure referes to an older classification).
What do you think? In particular, which is easier to understand: a table with "or" in it, or a chart? -- Woseph 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone put a citation about how obesity, drugs, alcohol, stress, disease, exercise and diet affects blood pressure. You won't find a citation for something that is plainly obvious as that and is common knowledge. pff, you people and your dumb citation tagging, use your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 ( talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Not related only to this specifically (but terribly important for medical articles I'd think): why doesn't Wikipedia has something resembling Amazon's "Real Name" (trademark secured by Amazon..) for actually verifying that if someone says they are a research/doctor/nurse/etc, it actually is true? Or is it that Amazon has trademarked "Real Name"? Wikipeida does have user pages, which can contain links to say someone's University web-page which would serve as a verifiable source for credentials - but such credentials are not necessarily verified. And it means that someone has to go to the trouble of creating a user page to provide verification of ones credentials - this should be easier for an otherwise "anonymous user" to do - but credentials must still be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.238 ( talk) 05:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The chart is self-contradictory, showing 60-79 diastolic as both Normal and Prehypertension. There is no way to avoid being either hypotention or prehypertension, which is not reassuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 ( talk) 01:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
B.P. IN PARALYSED UPPR LIMB IN PATIENT WITH CVA IS THE SAME AS HEALTHY ONE
if your extremeties "Fall asleep" easily/quickly, is this caused by low blood pressure?
The uncomfortable sensation is the un-coordinated reassembly of those signals as the neurons regain their oxygen debt. Low blood pressure also effects photo-receptors (eyes), so when you stand up quickly as the blood pressure falls in your head, your vision is impaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 ( talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The systolic pressure values for dogs and cats is listed as "between 150 and 150 mmHg". I don't have the actual values, but this seems to be wrong.
This problem occurs while standing still for several minutes and goes away as soon as I recline to a sitting position. Does anyone have a perspective on this condition? I'm am taking several medications for high blood pressure. 69.143.195.248 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Target values are listed. Text refers to ranges. What are desirable ranges? DGerman 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The ranges for both systolic and diastolic pressures are so varied that there is no true range for diagnostic comparability.
There are lots of obvious See Also links which are not there, although they are mentioned earlier in the article. Is that because some wikipedia guideline says not to add to See Also articles which have already been linked? If so, I think that's dumb. (I'll explain further if asked). If not, well, I'll go ahead and add a pile more See Also links if no-one else does first.-- SportWagon 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was to merge Home blood pressure monitoring into Blood pressure. -- B. Wolterding 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge the content of Home blood pressure monitoring into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. (While merging, that article could also use a bit shortening and cleanup, I think.)
Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have merged the articles. Some cleanup and shortening may be required; however, since I am not a subject-matter expert, I leave the cleanup to those who are. -- B. Wolterding 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a family doctor in the UK and have an interest in blood pressure
I think the article needs a section about high blood pressure symptoms. I've added the start of one with some references
This article fails a potential valuable public health function by providing the interested reader with no pointers to even the rudiments like the value of knowing one's blood pressure or the need to seek immediate medical consult if blood pressure is over 240/180, to say nothing of the value of weight loss, salt restriction, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is disagreement among hypertension experts as to whether white-coat hypertension should be considered a true hypertension or not. Many experts, but by no means all, think that white-coat HTN is a variation or a forme-fruste of HTN, caused in part by excessive catecholamine outflows. The section seems to give the impression that there is no disagreement.-- Bwthemoose/ Talk 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
describ in datail how the blood pressure is measured in human,if the blood pressure is 120/80mmHg,what will be the pulse rate? 78.138.5.82 ( talk) 14:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The introduction states that measurement is universally in mm Hg. Not so in Brasil where kPa is the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 ( talk • contribs)
The section "MEASUREMENT", third paragraph ends with "[citation needed]". Why is a citation needed? The sentence it is attached to appears to me to be a simple statement, much like many other sentences in this article that do not end with a citation. The subject sentence, "Along with body temperature, respiratory rate, and pulse rate, BP measurements are the most commonly measured physiological parameters" appears to me to be an unimpeachable statement. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mach37 (
talk •
contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the lowest possible blood pressure one can have without sustaining injuries? Short term and long term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.131.68 ( talk • contribs)
I think the first two paragraphs of the "Normal values" section in the article are a misinterpretation of the term "normal" with regards to a person's physiological state. My understanding of normal in a medical context is that it refers to the state of a normal healthy functioning body or part of a body. This is not necessarily the same as the average value for a given population. For example, the average weight of the U.S. population is abnormally high.
In the second paragraph it is appropriate to speak of the normal values of children being different than for adults. However, it does not seem appropriate to speak of the normal values of adults changing as they age. The average values of adults will change with age but the values for a normal healthy functioning body remain the same. The increase in blood pressure with age from stiffening of arteries, for example, is pathological not normal, in the context of this discussion. One can speak of normal changes due to aging, but normal in this sense means expected, rather than nonpathological.
I would be interested in other editors' comments on this. Is it clear, right, wrong, whatever. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The values I'm finding are all over the ball park and the old rule mentioned that your pressure should be for a male 100 plus your age (and miunus 10for a female) is debated ; so that normal people csan not be sure what is OK level , esp with doctor encouragement to take pills if over 130/80. And so for older persons, as say a 55 year old person ,lthat older rule used for decades would mean 155 is ok , but many want to put you on a pill.... So the article does not address this,. and perhaps can not. /s/ harold von salk 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this phrase may be misleading:
The diastolic blood pressure can not be estimated by this method.
I think the reference is referring to the use of palpation in combination with a sphygmanometer, but it could be read as applying to all uses of palpation.
The most likely use of palpation is in regard to shock and, in that case, if the systolic pressure is barely enough to detect, the diastolic one obviously isn't, however, as original research, so you can't use it in the article, my impression is that one can estimate both diastolic and systolic, for normal to high ranges, by the onset and termination of the pulse as one increases pressure on the artery.
-- David Woolley ( talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been having a problem in the Blood pressure article with the links from the footnotes for Pickering 2005 to the References section. I've tried to debug it in various ways without success, except to find that the problem is related to the presence of one or more coauthors in the Pickering 2005 article. Have you tested the changes to see how they work for sources with multiple authors with respect to the link from the harv footnote to the source in a Reference section, like in the case of the Blood pressure article? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Cite journal}}
, instead of
|first=TG|last=Pickering|coauthors=JE Hall, LJ Appel, et al
|first1=TG |last1=Pickering |first2=JE |last2=Hall |first3=LJ |last3=Appel |first4=BE |last4=Falkner |author5=et al
{{
harv|Pickering|Hall|Appel|al|2005|p=nnn}}
{{
harv|Pickering|Hall|Appel|Falkner|2005|p=nnn}}
|author9=
, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field |coauthors=
doesn't work when |last2=
is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into {{
harv}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Nice to see that my suggestions worked... there's one small matter of style, that is entirely up to you. It does not affect the mechanism for the citation linking.
As I read it, the journal article in question has ten authors; however, the {{
cite journal}} template allows for no more than nine authors (whether specified as |authorn=
, as pairs of |firstn=
/|lastn=
or a mixture. I suggested four, being the minimum required for {{
harv}} to behave properly and still show "et al" in the Footnotes section; but it might be better to show as many as possible under "References" (give credit where credit is due) - unfortunately there is no official method to show more than eight distinct authors, but I think that we can fiddle the system to get the last two into the page source (even though they won't actually display), by cramming them into |author9=
, as below.
Basically, I have found that if you provide nine authors to {{ cite journal}} it will automatically do an "et al" after a certain point; by default, this is after the eighth author, but other positions may be set (see later). So, instead of this:
|author5=et al
try this:
|first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ
which will give something like this (I shortened the title here, and removed the URL, DOI etc. purely for demonstration purposes):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)You might feel that fewer than eight distinct authors would be better. I'm not sure just how many authors are best to show; and I don't really know where to look for guidance; but let's say that you felt that six was best. You would do it using |display-authors=
like this:
|first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ |display-authors=6
will give something like this:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Really though, it's entirely up to you whether you want to specify further authors in {{ cite journal}} - but as I mentioned before, leave {{ harv}} alone, because that won't handle more than four. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
AMA citation guidelines suggest that if there are more than six authors, include only the first three, followed by et al. [1]
The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) citation guidelines list up to six authors, followed by et al if there are more than six. [2]
|display-authors=3
to it. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
APA style uses et al. if the work cited was written by more than six authors; MLA style uses et al. for more than three authors.
|display-authors=
is not shown in the five different sets of blank parameters; but later on, under
Legend:
|
|first1=TG |last1=Pickering |first2=JE |last2=Hall |first3=LJ |last3=Appel |first4=BE |last4=Falkner |first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ |display-authors=3
The above Parts I and II were copied from elsewhere, as indicated. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing pipe in: |publisher=
(
help)
Is it normal for your blood pressure to go to 160/89 in the AM (this is while drinking coffee and doing you AM tasks)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.64.21 ( talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The large sections of unreferenced text concerns me. Will nominate for GAR. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I havent found any mention of this in the article, though I may have missed it, and I believe it is a rather important piece of info:-
Blood Pressure = Cardiac Output X Peripherial Resistance
It is important as it is used to calculate blood pressure and in the choice of treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.126.21 ( talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a small paragraph mentioning the above. Thank you! -- Enigma ( talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is blood pressure not measured in pascals, a proper SI unit? Medicine is, after all, a science. 78.86.61.94 ( talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In some countries (eg Brasil), the units are confusingly quoted as centimetres of mercury rather than millimetres. Just divide/multiply by ten to get the conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.74.164 ( talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There should be a mention of ambulatory BP-monitoring units, commonly called "holders", which provide a statistically more reliable record of a person's current BP.- The Gnome ( talk) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know about how many blood pressures are taken daily in the unites states, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.78.134 ( talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Rather than have a sentence at the top of the article saying "See hypertension for information on high blood pressure", I feel it would improve article to have a "See also" section at the end, where high blood pressure or hypertension could be listed. This would certainly be consistent with lots of other Wikipedia articles. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As a lay reader I'd just like to congratulate the authors of this article. For all I know, it may be nonsense, but if so, it is well written and well presented nonsense. Also there is no mention of salt, so it was probably not written by complete idiots. Cheers, Jonathan Bagley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.137 ( talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. This discussion has generated many promising ideas, but also a strong consensus that this subject should be described at its common name, " blood pressure". ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Blood pressure → Systemic arterial blood pressure – The content in this article is almost entirely about arterial pressure in the systemic circulation, and I think the title should reflect the content. The layout is very badly adapted to the existence of blood pressure at other sites, such as venous pressure including central venous pressure, jugular venous pressure and portal venous pressure. The only location for such subjects in the article is currently in Blood pressure#Other sites, which, however, merely is a subsection of Blood pressure#Measurement, and, even so, the bulk of its content is still about systemic arterial pressure in the form of "Blood pressure drop across major arteries to capillaries". Adaption of this article to properly describe other blood pressures than the systemic arterial one would necessitate a complete rewrite of the article, but moving it to the title Systemic arterial blood pressure would allow it to retain its current layout. Also, even if removing the other types of blood pressures to a new Blood pressure article with wider scope, the Systemic arterial blood pressure article would still be over 50 kilobytes long, and the new Blood pressure article will certainly be more than long enough just with the introductions to, for example, central venous pressure, jugular venous pressure and portal venous pressure. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It is hereby suggested that:
On second thought, I agree with Flamarande and Grandiose in not moving. The alternative layout suggested just above would keep this article at its wp:Common name while availing for general aspects at the end of the article in a separate section. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 10:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the previously suggested move above, I think the content regarding systemic arterial blood pressure in this article should have an own top-level header, thereby distinguishing from blood pressure at other sites. As systemic arterial blood pressure is the main type referred to, it may still be emphasized in the lead section, but with a statement implying that it's not the only one, such as "When used without further specification, "blood pressure" usually refers to systemic arterial blood pressure". Thus, the layout would be:
The latter three sections are new or moved from information currently in the subsection of "Measurement", and are outlined in User:Mikael_Häggström/Blood_pressure. Those pieces of information are very hard to add in the current layout of the article. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In a recent revision [11] every word diastolic in this article was changed to astolic. I'm more familiar with using diastolic so I suggest reverting this revision. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The table states that BP over 180/120 mmHg is hypertensive crisis. I'd suggest the value should be 180/110, and instead of crisis, maybe labelled "Severe" or Stage 3. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0215/p470.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.77.11 ( talk) 06:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know how is long time it's known that the blood pressure influence about our life? and in addition, when is the begining of use the blood pressure check. thanks for help. 46.210.98.216 ( talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The main article implies that blood pressure is usually measured in terms of millimeters of Mercury. That begs the question. What other liquids are available for comparison?
The only other one I've seen used is cmH2O, but very rarely these days. Hg is used since it's pretty much the densest liquid that's reasonably abundant, but you could make a manometer with any fluid you want. 99.172.17.253 ( talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Does spending long periods of time in a submarine result in different readings for the blood pressure of the occupants? For instance, 48 hours at 200 feet below the surface. How long does it take the human body to respond (and adjust) to the pressure differences?
Are there any research studies for this sort of thing? Any links to the research studies would help me understand the main article. 216.99.198.210 ( talk) 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics. The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error.
The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics. The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.95.118 ( talk) 03:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A decent reorganization effort was made a few years ago at Talk:Blood_pressure#Own_section_for_systemic_arterial_blood_pressure. While it was a step in the right direction, it leaves out some key areas including regulation of blood pressure. I want to reorganize the article using MOS:MED#Symptoms_or_signs roughly as a guideline. The sections would be something like this:
I would definitely welcome any comments or suggestions. 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Gccwang proposes to split the section on measurement into its own new article. I support this idea because this section is long and this amount of detail is unnecessary for this article when a summary of the concept would meet the need here. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any objections here but the proposal is pretty old. So I'm raising this issue again, with a view to creating a new section sometime over the summer unless there is an objection. Adh ( talk) 15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to merge the page Low blood pressure cascade into this page, since its content is somewhat redundant. Citations would need to be added (the other article has no citations at all), and then it would probably incorporate into the Blood_pressure#Regulation section. Gccwang ( talk) 03:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The contents of the Low blood pressure cascade page were merged into Blood pressure. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (September 2014) |
Two things about this section. First, "Treatment of underlying conditions" is uncited. I didn't flag, but someone should fix it as it's pretty central in a medical sense. Second, "Other substances that affect blood pressure" is entirely uncited, seems like a stub, and lists "Drugs of abuse". "Drugs of abuse" is, well, tons of things. I presume my blood pressure would be effected differently while on Ketamine as opposed to Cocaine, as opposed to Codeine, as opposed to Khat, as opposed to... you get the idea. 2601:C:AB80:3D1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Could some experts be found to contribute on the question of the size and construction of the cuff and air bladder? Surely there are standards, going back to the mercury sphygmomanometer used by Korotkoff?
In my informal experimentation, I have found a definite connection between cuff size, cuff stiffness, and the size of the air bladder, inside the cuff. Smaller cuffs and bladders on larger diameter arms give inaccurate results. That is, inaccurate measurements that are far too high.
Worse, I have encountered a trend toward over-estimation of blood pressure as a cuff wears out from use and becomes less stiff. The softer backing on the air bladder requires a higher air pressure to cut off circulation. Results are readings that are inaccurately high.
Online recommendations by some sites, such as the Mayo Clinic and Baum (WABaum.com), recommend that the air bladder wrap a minimum 80% around the arm. But nothing is mentioned about the maximum amount of wrap. Little can be found concerning recommended width of the bladder and cuff, in the dimension along the arm.
Can any research be found, and referenced? Surely this work has been done. As some have already posted, it is really difficult to get clear and consistent recommendations on exactly what ones blood pressure should be, based on age and other health issues. I suspect that the confusion is made much worse by inaccurate measurement of blood pressure.
Can any experts comment? Or point us in the direction of research papers? Even if the research is locked behind a "pay wall"? 68.35.173.107 ( talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a dubious tag with explanation here. Also there is no citation for the entire paragraph. --TMCk ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
maybe it would be good to stress this when mentioning the different cuff sizes. My girlfriend took 15 years Bisoprolol 5 mg because all doctors and the local hospital took standard cuffs while she has 38 cm mid-ac. She is not fat, that was probably the reason but she has lipohypertrophy just on the upper arms. She always had normal blood pressure all the while, i.e. with the bisoprolol she had 100/60 instead of 120/60! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv0isin ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Describing the process of measurement with a sphygmomanometer, the paragraph ends with, "The cuff pressure is further released until no sound can be heard (fifth Korotkoff sound), at the diastolic arterial pressure." As in this statement, it is common practice to simply assert that the point of no sound is the diastolic arterial pressure, without explanation. However, there is really no obvious rational or physical reason to associate the two. Indeed, that statement appears on simple reasoning to be false! What is obvious is that the only sound that can be heard in the stethoscope is the flow disturbance caused by the peak pressure and peak flow at the site of measurement (the cuff). The diastolic point of the heart cycle would always be a resting or quiet point. Hence, to repeat for emphasis, as the pressure in the cuff is reduced the systolic point pressure is what creates the sound heard in through the stethoscope. So when the sound ceases to be heard it because the systolic peak, not the diastolic null, is no longer heard. The systolic peak is not heard because the occlusion of the artery is too insignificant to create an audible blood flow disturbance. The point at which the systolic pressure cannot create sound in the artery could not be the diastolic pressure because the diastolic pressure is by definition less than the systolic pressure. Hence the logical conclusion that the original statement is false. The point of this comment of mine is to propose that If there is any relation between the point of "no sound can be heard" and the diastolic pressure, it should be explained in this article. I note that there is also no explanation in the Wikipedia article on the sphygmomanometer.
Wiki-producer ( talk) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The entry says, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively above 115/75 mm Hg." As supporting evidence, it cites:
Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, Sacks FM (February 2006). "Dietary approaches to prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association". Hypertension 47 (2): 296–308. http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/47/2/296 doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000202568.01167.B6. PMID 16434724.
2 problems with that.
1 That scientific statement is from 2006. That's older than the references we prefer in WP:MEDRS.
2 The scientific statement says in the abstract, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively throughout the range of BP, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg." But I can't find a source to support that anywhere in the scientific statement.
Does anybody have a good, WP:MEDRS source to support the statement that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases starting at 115/75, even for people who are not obese, diabetic or already with a cardiovascular disease? -- Nbauman ( talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing about the SPRINT trial? https://www.sprinttrial.org/public/dspHome.cfm -- Nbauman ( talk) 04:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant to mention this here some time ago http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2015/nhlbi-11.htm - not sure if it's useful, but here it is if so.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
The use of a "black box" type of blood pressure monitor is accurate for these days, but quite uninformative of how the measurement actually works, and particularly why the units are "mm(Hg)". If an appropriate image is available, an old style mercury sphygomanometer (spelling?) would be an appropriate addition. IMHO. Aidan Karley ( talk) 09:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The table lists 60-79 diastolic as both normal and prehypertensive. Aesthetically the rows under systolic for stage 1 and stage 2 should be switched to make them consistent with normal and prehypertensive. I would say the same is true for diastolic, but there seems another irreconcilable number conflict there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 ( talk) 06:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The section sub-titled "Blood pressure in other animals" just talks about blood pressure in cats. Could it talk about blood pressure in animals other than cats? Vorbee ( talk) 16:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Blood pressure means the pressure on the walls of the blood vessels due to increased flow of blood through it.Which means it's mainly due to increased blood levels in the body.There are some others reasons as well but increasing blood levels are a reason for the constance in the disease.Why can't there be medicines which can help decrease blood levels like use of some of the Vitamin B complex other than folic acid and those which increase blood?They can help reduce blood levels .What do you think can be a better way of reducing blood levels? Discuss... Wizziwizard ( talk) 04:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
References
In the Mean arterial pressure section, there is something not right about how the math formulas are displayed when using the Wikipedia App. Senator2029 “Talk” 20:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I came to this page hoping to learn a little bit about how blood pressure was discovered (i.e: who thought of it in the first place) and how it came to be measured.
While this article includes a great deal about the technical attributes of BP, it lacks a historical perspective. I have no background in this field, but a general web search lead me to Stephen Hales, the history of hypertension and the development of the Sphygometer. I don't feel confident enough in my information to add to the article, but wanted to suggest/ request that a reference to these ideas (hypertension and the Sphygometer have references within the text, but not in a historical/ origination context) be included. 170.140.105.41 ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
pls help I can't find the correct answers any where 41.115.61.4 ( talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The article reports, what the prevailing doctrine - or ideology!? -currently indicates as limits of «normal» blood pressure versus «hypertension» - grade 1, grade 2, grade 3. These limits haven't always been the same in history and they don't respect any individual elements, particularly of age, contrary to older doctrines. These «limits of tolerance» have been lowered constantly under the benevolent eyes of the pharmaceutical, or generally medical industry. «Honny soit qui mal y pense!» For a long time there has been an accepted limit for the systolic pressure of age plus 100 or age plus 90. It would be very welcome, if someone could report the history of these limits. Werfur ( talk) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Blood pressure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Blood pressure was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Blood pressure.
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
"The clear trend from double blind clinical trials (for the better strategies and agents) has increasingly been that lower BP is found to result in less disease".
Footnote 1 is not linking to a PDF document anymore 210.9.143.73 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
BLOOD PRESSURE IS SOMETIMES CAUSED BY PEOPLE WHEN THEY GET ANGRY AND THEIR BLOOD PRESSURE GETS HIGH.ALSO BIG/FAT PEOPLE HAS THIS AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE MEDICINE, BUT SOMETIMES THEY GET SO MAD THEY HAVE A HEART ATTACK OR STROKE SOMETIMES.IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON.BLOOD PRESSURE IS CALL BY OTHER THINGS BUT MOSTLY THAT .
Omg...you are a complete idiot. All the nurses I work with, and myself included, are laughing our hind ends off.
If in 95% of the time medical science does not know what causes high blood pressure, how can you say it isn't caused by something. WSNRFN ( talk)WSNRFN —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC).
Let's say that I kill 100 idiots. For five of them, I poison them with a common toxic, but for the other 95, I cut their heads off with some unknown, but sharp object. One would be quite accurate in saying that we don't know what killed 95% of the idiots, but it wasn't electrocution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.159.216 ( talk) 01:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a correlation or ratio betweem systolic and diastolic components of blood pressure?
Is the ideal blood pressure the same for everyone or is it different for youth or kids? I'm seventeen and I got 120/60 which according to the nurse was "Perfect!"(this was during "conscription"). So, is there any diffrence?-- 84.217.120.7 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
HI,I dont understand my blood pressure reading. I have looked at many charts and it doesnt seem to fit. As of late its been 111/44 wich seems ok, but the last two times its been 114/90 and 119/101..I am only 27,and it said that the systolic should go up.. I really am confused..
68.226.14.152 (
talk) 08:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
How does sleep effect your blood pressure? what can happen to you with high blood pressure
The larger arteries, including all large enough to see without magnification, are low resistance (assuming no advanced atherosclerotic changes) and conduit vessels with high flow rates but producing very little pressure drop. For instance, about 5 mmHg mean pressure decrease in the blood flow traveling from the heart all the way to the toes is typical, assuming the individual is supine (horizontal with respect to gravity).
This paragraph is icomplete without some mention of how far the blood pressure falls through the capillaries; the readers deserve context to compare that 5 mmHg figure to. As it is now, scientifically rigorous readers need to scroll all the way down the page to find out that blood returns to the heart at about 5 total mmHg. (I guess that means a drop of ca. 65 mmHg in the capillaries and 5 mmHg in the veins? 5+5+5+65=80?) Doops | talk 04:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Causes of high blood pressure may be, as I understand it, one or more of flow constriction(s), amount of blood and viscosity. Besides the possiblity of dietary salt increasing amount of blood, are there any dietary or drug factors that are believed to affect esp. viscosity [considering that high vicosity could possibly a cause of TIA by starvation rather than hæmorrhage]. If so, would heavy exercise enhance or mitigate the factors?
L-- 202.164.205.125 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
How does Blood Pressure vary with age?
I think we should add a information about classification of blood pressure. We could adopt the data from [4] (for adults, taken from [5]), but I think a chart such as the upper figure in [6] is easier to understand (note, however, that this figure referes to an older classification).
What do you think? In particular, which is easier to understand: a table with "or" in it, or a chart? -- Woseph 12:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone put a citation about how obesity, drugs, alcohol, stress, disease, exercise and diet affects blood pressure. You won't find a citation for something that is plainly obvious as that and is common knowledge. pff, you people and your dumb citation tagging, use your head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 ( talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Not related only to this specifically (but terribly important for medical articles I'd think): why doesn't Wikipedia has something resembling Amazon's "Real Name" (trademark secured by Amazon..) for actually verifying that if someone says they are a research/doctor/nurse/etc, it actually is true? Or is it that Amazon has trademarked "Real Name"? Wikipeida does have user pages, which can contain links to say someone's University web-page which would serve as a verifiable source for credentials - but such credentials are not necessarily verified. And it means that someone has to go to the trouble of creating a user page to provide verification of ones credentials - this should be easier for an otherwise "anonymous user" to do - but credentials must still be verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.238 ( talk) 05:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The chart is self-contradictory, showing 60-79 diastolic as both Normal and Prehypertension. There is no way to avoid being either hypotention or prehypertension, which is not reassuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 ( talk) 01:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
B.P. IN PARALYSED UPPR LIMB IN PATIENT WITH CVA IS THE SAME AS HEALTHY ONE
if your extremeties "Fall asleep" easily/quickly, is this caused by low blood pressure?
The uncomfortable sensation is the un-coordinated reassembly of those signals as the neurons regain their oxygen debt. Low blood pressure also effects photo-receptors (eyes), so when you stand up quickly as the blood pressure falls in your head, your vision is impaired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.225 ( talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The systolic pressure values for dogs and cats is listed as "between 150 and 150 mmHg". I don't have the actual values, but this seems to be wrong.
This problem occurs while standing still for several minutes and goes away as soon as I recline to a sitting position. Does anyone have a perspective on this condition? I'm am taking several medications for high blood pressure. 69.143.195.248 17:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Target values are listed. Text refers to ranges. What are desirable ranges? DGerman 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The ranges for both systolic and diastolic pressures are so varied that there is no true range for diagnostic comparability.
There are lots of obvious See Also links which are not there, although they are mentioned earlier in the article. Is that because some wikipedia guideline says not to add to See Also articles which have already been linked? If so, I think that's dumb. (I'll explain further if asked). If not, well, I'll go ahead and add a pile more See Also links if no-one else does first.-- SportWagon 18:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The result was to merge Home blood pressure monitoring into Blood pressure. -- B. Wolterding 11:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge the content of Home blood pressure monitoring into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned. (While merging, that article could also use a bit shortening and cleanup, I think.)
Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have merged the articles. Some cleanup and shortening may be required; however, since I am not a subject-matter expert, I leave the cleanup to those who are. -- B. Wolterding 11:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm a family doctor in the UK and have an interest in blood pressure
I think the article needs a section about high blood pressure symptoms. I've added the start of one with some references
This article fails a potential valuable public health function by providing the interested reader with no pointers to even the rudiments like the value of knowing one's blood pressure or the need to seek immediate medical consult if blood pressure is over 240/180, to say nothing of the value of weight loss, salt restriction, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is disagreement among hypertension experts as to whether white-coat hypertension should be considered a true hypertension or not. Many experts, but by no means all, think that white-coat HTN is a variation or a forme-fruste of HTN, caused in part by excessive catecholamine outflows. The section seems to give the impression that there is no disagreement.-- Bwthemoose/ Talk 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
describ in datail how the blood pressure is measured in human,if the blood pressure is 120/80mmHg,what will be the pulse rate? 78.138.5.82 ( talk) 14:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The introduction states that measurement is universally in mm Hg. Not so in Brasil where kPa is the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 ( talk • contribs)
The section "MEASUREMENT", third paragraph ends with "[citation needed]". Why is a citation needed? The sentence it is attached to appears to me to be a simple statement, much like many other sentences in this article that do not end with a citation. The subject sentence, "Along with body temperature, respiratory rate, and pulse rate, BP measurements are the most commonly measured physiological parameters" appears to me to be an unimpeachable statement. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mach37 (
talk •
contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the lowest possible blood pressure one can have without sustaining injuries? Short term and long term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.131.68 ( talk • contribs)
I think the first two paragraphs of the "Normal values" section in the article are a misinterpretation of the term "normal" with regards to a person's physiological state. My understanding of normal in a medical context is that it refers to the state of a normal healthy functioning body or part of a body. This is not necessarily the same as the average value for a given population. For example, the average weight of the U.S. population is abnormally high.
In the second paragraph it is appropriate to speak of the normal values of children being different than for adults. However, it does not seem appropriate to speak of the normal values of adults changing as they age. The average values of adults will change with age but the values for a normal healthy functioning body remain the same. The increase in blood pressure with age from stiffening of arteries, for example, is pathological not normal, in the context of this discussion. One can speak of normal changes due to aging, but normal in this sense means expected, rather than nonpathological.
I would be interested in other editors' comments on this. Is it clear, right, wrong, whatever. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 14:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The values I'm finding are all over the ball park and the old rule mentioned that your pressure should be for a male 100 plus your age (and miunus 10for a female) is debated ; so that normal people csan not be sure what is OK level , esp with doctor encouragement to take pills if over 130/80. And so for older persons, as say a 55 year old person ,lthat older rule used for decades would mean 155 is ok , but many want to put you on a pill.... So the article does not address this,. and perhaps can not. /s/ harold von salk 69.121.221.97 ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think this phrase may be misleading:
The diastolic blood pressure can not be estimated by this method.
I think the reference is referring to the use of palpation in combination with a sphygmanometer, but it could be read as applying to all uses of palpation.
The most likely use of palpation is in regard to shock and, in that case, if the systolic pressure is barely enough to detect, the diastolic one obviously isn't, however, as original research, so you can't use it in the article, my impression is that one can estimate both diastolic and systolic, for normal to high ranges, by the onset and termination of the pulse as one increases pressure on the artery.
-- David Woolley ( talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been having a problem in the Blood pressure article with the links from the footnotes for Pickering 2005 to the References section. I've tried to debug it in various ways without success, except to find that the problem is related to the presence of one or more coauthors in the Pickering 2005 article. Have you tested the changes to see how they work for sources with multiple authors with respect to the link from the harv footnote to the source in a Reference section, like in the case of the Blood pressure article? Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
Cite journal}}
, instead of
|first=TG|last=Pickering|coauthors=JE Hall, LJ Appel, et al
|first1=TG |last1=Pickering |first2=JE |last2=Hall |first3=LJ |last3=Appel |first4=BE |last4=Falkner |author5=et al
{{
harv|Pickering|Hall|Appel|al|2005|p=nnn}}
{{
harv|Pickering|Hall|Appel|Falkner|2005|p=nnn}}
|author9=
, which is unfortunate because this paper has 10 authors. The field |coauthors=
doesn't work when |last2=
is specified. However, don't feed more than four lastnames into {{
harv}}
. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Nice to see that my suggestions worked... there's one small matter of style, that is entirely up to you. It does not affect the mechanism for the citation linking.
As I read it, the journal article in question has ten authors; however, the {{
cite journal}} template allows for no more than nine authors (whether specified as |authorn=
, as pairs of |firstn=
/|lastn=
or a mixture. I suggested four, being the minimum required for {{
harv}} to behave properly and still show "et al" in the Footnotes section; but it might be better to show as many as possible under "References" (give credit where credit is due) - unfortunately there is no official method to show more than eight distinct authors, but I think that we can fiddle the system to get the last two into the page source (even though they won't actually display), by cramming them into |author9=
, as below.
Basically, I have found that if you provide nine authors to {{ cite journal}} it will automatically do an "et al" after a certain point; by default, this is after the eighth author, but other positions may be set (see later). So, instead of this:
|author5=et al
try this:
|first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ
which will give something like this (I shortened the title here, and removed the URL, DOI etc. purely for demonstration purposes):
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)You might feel that fewer than eight distinct authors would be better. I'm not sure just how many authors are best to show; and I don't really know where to look for guidance; but let's say that you felt that six was best. You would do it using |display-authors=
like this:
|first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ |display-authors=6
will give something like this:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Really though, it's entirely up to you whether you want to specify further authors in {{ cite journal}} - but as I mentioned before, leave {{ harv}} alone, because that won't handle more than four. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
AMA citation guidelines suggest that if there are more than six authors, include only the first three, followed by et al. [1]
The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) citation guidelines list up to six authors, followed by et al if there are more than six. [2]
|display-authors=3
to it. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 10:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
APA style uses et al. if the work cited was written by more than six authors; MLA style uses et al. for more than three authors.
|display-authors=
is not shown in the five different sets of blank parameters; but later on, under
Legend:
|
|first1=TG |last1=Pickering |first2=JE |last2=Hall |first3=LJ |last3=Appel |first4=BE |last4=Falkner |first5=J |last5=Graves |first6=MN |last6=Hill |first7=DW |last7=Jones |first8=T |last8=Kurtz |author9=Sheps, SG; Roccella, EJ |display-authors=3
The above Parts I and II were copied from elsewhere, as indicated. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing pipe in: |publisher=
(
help)
Is it normal for your blood pressure to go to 160/89 in the AM (this is while drinking coffee and doing you AM tasks)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.67.64.21 ( talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The large sections of unreferenced text concerns me. Will nominate for GAR. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I havent found any mention of this in the article, though I may have missed it, and I believe it is a rather important piece of info:-
Blood Pressure = Cardiac Output X Peripherial Resistance
It is important as it is used to calculate blood pressure and in the choice of treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.126.21 ( talk) 22:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've added a small paragraph mentioning the above. Thank you! -- Enigma ( talk) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Why is blood pressure not measured in pascals, a proper SI unit? Medicine is, after all, a science. 78.86.61.94 ( talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In some countries (eg Brasil), the units are confusingly quoted as centimetres of mercury rather than millimetres. Just divide/multiply by ten to get the conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.74.164 ( talk) 11:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
There should be a mention of ambulatory BP-monitoring units, commonly called "holders", which provide a statistically more reliable record of a person's current BP.- The Gnome ( talk) 04:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know about how many blood pressures are taken daily in the unites states, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.78.134 ( talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Rather than have a sentence at the top of the article saying "See hypertension for information on high blood pressure", I feel it would improve article to have a "See also" section at the end, where high blood pressure or hypertension could be listed. This would certainly be consistent with lots of other Wikipedia articles. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As a lay reader I'd just like to congratulate the authors of this article. For all I know, it may be nonsense, but if so, it is well written and well presented nonsense. Also there is no mention of salt, so it was probably not written by complete idiots. Cheers, Jonathan Bagley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.137 ( talk) 12:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. This discussion has generated many promising ideas, but also a strong consensus that this subject should be described at its common name, " blood pressure". ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Blood pressure → Systemic arterial blood pressure – The content in this article is almost entirely about arterial pressure in the systemic circulation, and I think the title should reflect the content. The layout is very badly adapted to the existence of blood pressure at other sites, such as venous pressure including central venous pressure, jugular venous pressure and portal venous pressure. The only location for such subjects in the article is currently in Blood pressure#Other sites, which, however, merely is a subsection of Blood pressure#Measurement, and, even so, the bulk of its content is still about systemic arterial pressure in the form of "Blood pressure drop across major arteries to capillaries". Adaption of this article to properly describe other blood pressures than the systemic arterial one would necessitate a complete rewrite of the article, but moving it to the title Systemic arterial blood pressure would allow it to retain its current layout. Also, even if removing the other types of blood pressures to a new Blood pressure article with wider scope, the Systemic arterial blood pressure article would still be over 50 kilobytes long, and the new Blood pressure article will certainly be more than long enough just with the introductions to, for example, central venous pressure, jugular venous pressure and portal venous pressure. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It is hereby suggested that:
On second thought, I agree with Flamarande and Grandiose in not moving. The alternative layout suggested just above would keep this article at its wp:Common name while availing for general aspects at the end of the article in a separate section. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 10:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Instead of the previously suggested move above, I think the content regarding systemic arterial blood pressure in this article should have an own top-level header, thereby distinguishing from blood pressure at other sites. As systemic arterial blood pressure is the main type referred to, it may still be emphasized in the lead section, but with a statement implying that it's not the only one, such as "When used without further specification, "blood pressure" usually refers to systemic arterial blood pressure". Thus, the layout would be:
The latter three sections are new or moved from information currently in the subsection of "Measurement", and are outlined in User:Mikael_Häggström/Blood_pressure. Those pieces of information are very hard to add in the current layout of the article. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In a recent revision [11] every word diastolic in this article was changed to astolic. I'm more familiar with using diastolic so I suggest reverting this revision. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The table states that BP over 180/120 mmHg is hypertensive crisis. I'd suggest the value should be 180/110, and instead of crisis, maybe labelled "Severe" or Stage 3. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2010/0215/p470.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.77.11 ( talk) 06:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know how is long time it's known that the blood pressure influence about our life? and in addition, when is the begining of use the blood pressure check. thanks for help. 46.210.98.216 ( talk) 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The main article implies that blood pressure is usually measured in terms of millimeters of Mercury. That begs the question. What other liquids are available for comparison?
The only other one I've seen used is cmH2O, but very rarely these days. Hg is used since it's pretty much the densest liquid that's reasonably abundant, but you could make a manometer with any fluid you want. 99.172.17.253 ( talk) 20:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Does spending long periods of time in a submarine result in different readings for the blood pressure of the occupants? For instance, 48 hours at 200 feet below the surface. How long does it take the human body to respond (and adjust) to the pressure differences?
Are there any research studies for this sort of thing? Any links to the research studies would help me understand the main article. 216.99.198.210 ( talk) 00:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics. The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error.
The picture showing high blood pressure in a narrow artery illustrates incorrect physics. The faster fluid flow though a narrow artery would result in a lower pressure "in the artery", not a higher one as depicted. Relabeling to show a different pressure at the entrance, nor the exit, to the artery would correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.95.118 ( talk) 03:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A decent reorganization effort was made a few years ago at Talk:Blood_pressure#Own_section_for_systemic_arterial_blood_pressure. While it was a step in the right direction, it leaves out some key areas including regulation of blood pressure. I want to reorganize the article using MOS:MED#Symptoms_or_signs roughly as a guideline. The sections would be something like this:
I would definitely welcome any comments or suggestions. 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Gccwang proposes to split the section on measurement into its own new article. I support this idea because this section is long and this amount of detail is unnecessary for this article when a summary of the concept would meet the need here. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any objections here but the proposal is pretty old. So I'm raising this issue again, with a view to creating a new section sometime over the summer unless there is an objection. Adh ( talk) 15:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I would like to merge the page Low blood pressure cascade into this page, since its content is somewhat redundant. Citations would need to be added (the other article has no citations at all), and then it would probably incorporate into the Blood_pressure#Regulation section. Gccwang ( talk) 03:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The contents of the Low blood pressure cascade page were merged into Blood pressure. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (September 2014) |
Two things about this section. First, "Treatment of underlying conditions" is uncited. I didn't flag, but someone should fix it as it's pretty central in a medical sense. Second, "Other substances that affect blood pressure" is entirely uncited, seems like a stub, and lists "Drugs of abuse". "Drugs of abuse" is, well, tons of things. I presume my blood pressure would be effected differently while on Ketamine as opposed to Cocaine, as opposed to Codeine, as opposed to Khat, as opposed to... you get the idea. 2601:C:AB80:3D1:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 ( talk) 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Could some experts be found to contribute on the question of the size and construction of the cuff and air bladder? Surely there are standards, going back to the mercury sphygmomanometer used by Korotkoff?
In my informal experimentation, I have found a definite connection between cuff size, cuff stiffness, and the size of the air bladder, inside the cuff. Smaller cuffs and bladders on larger diameter arms give inaccurate results. That is, inaccurate measurements that are far too high.
Worse, I have encountered a trend toward over-estimation of blood pressure as a cuff wears out from use and becomes less stiff. The softer backing on the air bladder requires a higher air pressure to cut off circulation. Results are readings that are inaccurately high.
Online recommendations by some sites, such as the Mayo Clinic and Baum (WABaum.com), recommend that the air bladder wrap a minimum 80% around the arm. But nothing is mentioned about the maximum amount of wrap. Little can be found concerning recommended width of the bladder and cuff, in the dimension along the arm.
Can any research be found, and referenced? Surely this work has been done. As some have already posted, it is really difficult to get clear and consistent recommendations on exactly what ones blood pressure should be, based on age and other health issues. I suspect that the confusion is made much worse by inaccurate measurement of blood pressure.
Can any experts comment? Or point us in the direction of research papers? Even if the research is locked behind a "pay wall"? 68.35.173.107 ( talk) 21:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a dubious tag with explanation here. Also there is no citation for the entire paragraph. --TMCk ( talk) 04:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
maybe it would be good to stress this when mentioning the different cuff sizes. My girlfriend took 15 years Bisoprolol 5 mg because all doctors and the local hospital took standard cuffs while she has 38 cm mid-ac. She is not fat, that was probably the reason but she has lipohypertrophy just on the upper arms. She always had normal blood pressure all the while, i.e. with the bisoprolol she had 100/60 instead of 120/60! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malv0isin ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Describing the process of measurement with a sphygmomanometer, the paragraph ends with, "The cuff pressure is further released until no sound can be heard (fifth Korotkoff sound), at the diastolic arterial pressure." As in this statement, it is common practice to simply assert that the point of no sound is the diastolic arterial pressure, without explanation. However, there is really no obvious rational or physical reason to associate the two. Indeed, that statement appears on simple reasoning to be false! What is obvious is that the only sound that can be heard in the stethoscope is the flow disturbance caused by the peak pressure and peak flow at the site of measurement (the cuff). The diastolic point of the heart cycle would always be a resting or quiet point. Hence, to repeat for emphasis, as the pressure in the cuff is reduced the systolic point pressure is what creates the sound heard in through the stethoscope. So when the sound ceases to be heard it because the systolic peak, not the diastolic null, is no longer heard. The systolic peak is not heard because the occlusion of the artery is too insignificant to create an audible blood flow disturbance. The point at which the systolic pressure cannot create sound in the artery could not be the diastolic pressure because the diastolic pressure is by definition less than the systolic pressure. Hence the logical conclusion that the original statement is false. The point of this comment of mine is to propose that If there is any relation between the point of "no sound can be heard" and the diastolic pressure, it should be explained in this article. I note that there is also no explanation in the Wikipedia article on the sphygmomanometer.
Wiki-producer ( talk) 22:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The entry says, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively above 115/75 mm Hg." As supporting evidence, it cites:
Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, Sacks FM (February 2006). "Dietary approaches to prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association". Hypertension 47 (2): 296–308. http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/47/2/296 doi:10.1161/01.HYP.0000202568.01167.B6. PMID 16434724.
2 problems with that.
1 That scientific statement is from 2006. That's older than the references we prefer in WP:MEDRS.
2 The scientific statement says in the abstract, "The risk of cardiovascular disease increases progressively throughout the range of BP, beginning at 115/75 mm Hg." But I can't find a source to support that anywhere in the scientific statement.
Does anybody have a good, WP:MEDRS source to support the statement that the risk of cardiovascular disease increases starting at 115/75, even for people who are not obese, diabetic or already with a cardiovascular disease? -- Nbauman ( talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Nothing about the SPRINT trial? https://www.sprinttrial.org/public/dspHome.cfm -- Nbauman ( talk) 04:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant to mention this here some time ago http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2015/nhlbi-11.htm - not sure if it's useful, but here it is if so.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
The use of a "black box" type of blood pressure monitor is accurate for these days, but quite uninformative of how the measurement actually works, and particularly why the units are "mm(Hg)". If an appropriate image is available, an old style mercury sphygomanometer (spelling?) would be an appropriate addition. IMHO. Aidan Karley ( talk) 09:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Blood pressure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The table lists 60-79 diastolic as both normal and prehypertensive. Aesthetically the rows under systolic for stage 1 and stage 2 should be switched to make them consistent with normal and prehypertensive. I would say the same is true for diastolic, but there seems another irreconcilable number conflict there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.169.148.245 ( talk) 06:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The section sub-titled "Blood pressure in other animals" just talks about blood pressure in cats. Could it talk about blood pressure in animals other than cats? Vorbee ( talk) 16:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Blood pressure means the pressure on the walls of the blood vessels due to increased flow of blood through it.Which means it's mainly due to increased blood levels in the body.There are some others reasons as well but increasing blood levels are a reason for the constance in the disease.Why can't there be medicines which can help decrease blood levels like use of some of the Vitamin B complex other than folic acid and those which increase blood?They can help reduce blood levels .What do you think can be a better way of reducing blood levels? Discuss... Wizziwizard ( talk) 04:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
References
In the Mean arterial pressure section, there is something not right about how the math formulas are displayed when using the Wikipedia App. Senator2029 “Talk” 20:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I came to this page hoping to learn a little bit about how blood pressure was discovered (i.e: who thought of it in the first place) and how it came to be measured.
While this article includes a great deal about the technical attributes of BP, it lacks a historical perspective. I have no background in this field, but a general web search lead me to Stephen Hales, the history of hypertension and the development of the Sphygometer. I don't feel confident enough in my information to add to the article, but wanted to suggest/ request that a reference to these ideas (hypertension and the Sphygometer have references within the text, but not in a historical/ origination context) be included. 170.140.105.41 ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
pls help I can't find the correct answers any where 41.115.61.4 ( talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The article reports, what the prevailing doctrine - or ideology!? -currently indicates as limits of «normal» blood pressure versus «hypertension» - grade 1, grade 2, grade 3. These limits haven't always been the same in history and they don't respect any individual elements, particularly of age, contrary to older doctrines. These «limits of tolerance» have been lowered constantly under the benevolent eyes of the pharmaceutical, or generally medical industry. «Honny soit qui mal y pense!» For a long time there has been an accepted limit for the systolic pressure of age plus 100 or age plus 90. It would be very welcome, if someone could report the history of these limits. Werfur ( talk) 13:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)