Bmj Usa: Letter

Rapid Responses from bmj.com

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjusa.02100004 (Published 19 November 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:E158

From BMJ USA 2002;October:553

As of September 19, 2002, this article had generated 11 Rapid Responses, which can be read in their entirety at http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7358/254. Edited excerpts from two responses are presented here.Editor

Use the sphygmomanometers more, not less

  1. William Hamilton, research fellow (w.t.hamilton@btopenworld.com),
  2. Deborah Sharp, professor
  1. Division of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  2. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    EDITOR—The conclusion by Little et al—that conventional measurements by general practitioners may be misleading—runs ahead of the evidence. The chain of evidence that is required to make this conclusion has three links: The first is a reliable method of measuring blood pressure, the second is demonstrating that raised blood pressure diagnosed by the chosen method increases the patient's cardiovascular risk, and the …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Free trial

    Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
    Sign up for a free trial

    Subscribe