Loughborough University
journal.pone.0289052.pdf (1.64 MB)

Comparison of devices used to measure blood pressure, grip strength and lung function: a randomised cross-over study

Download (1.64 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2024-01-03, 16:16 authored by Carli Lessof, Rachel Cooper, Andrew Wong, Rebecca Bendayan, Rishi Caleyachetty, Hayley Cheshire, Theodore Cosco, Ahmed Elhakeem, Anna Hansell, Aradhna Kaushal, Diana Kuh, David Martin, Cosetta Minelli, Stella Muthuri, Maria Popham, Seif Shaheen, Patrick Sturgis, Rebecca HardyRebecca Hardy

Background: Blood pressure, grip strength and lung function are frequently assessed in longitudinal population studies, but the measurement devices used differ between studies and within studies over time. We aimed to compare measurements ascertained from different commonly used devices.

Methods: We used a randomised cross-over study. Participants were 118 men and women aged 45–74 years whose blood pressure, grip strength and lung function were assessed using two sphygmomanometers (Omron 705-CP and Omron HEM-907), four handheld dynamometers (Jamar Hydraulic, Jamar Plus+ Digital, Nottingham Electronic and Smedley) and two spirometers (Micro Medical Plus turbine and ndd Easy on-PC ultrasonic flow-sensor) with multiple measurements taken on each device. Mean differences between pairs of devices were estimated along with limits of agreement from Bland-Altman plots. Sensitivity analyses were carried out using alternative exclusion criteria and summary measures, and using multilevel models to estimate mean differences.

Results: The mean difference between sphygmomanometers was 3.9mmHg for systolic blood pressure (95% Confidence Interval (CI):2.5,5.2) and 1.4mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (95% CI:0.3,2.4), with the Omron HEM-907 measuring higher. For maximum grip strength, the mean difference when either one of the electronic dynamometers was compared with either the hydraulic or spring-gauge device was 4-5kg, with the electronic devices measuring higher. The differences were small when comparing the two electronic devices (difference = 0.3kg, 95% CI:-0.9,1.4), and when comparing the hydraulic and spring-gauge devices (difference = 0.2kg, 95% CI:-0.8,1.3). In all cases limits of agreement were wide. The mean difference in FEV1 between spirometers was close to zero (95% CI:-0.03,0.03), limits of agreement were reasonably narrow, but a difference of 0.47l was observed for FVC (95% CI:0.53,0.42), with the ndd Easy on-PC measuring higher.

Conclusion: Our study highlights potentially important differences in measurement of key functions when different devices are used. These differences need to be considered when interpreting results from modelling intra-individual changes in function and when carrying out cross-study comparisons, and sensitivity analyses using correction factors may be helpful.


Cohort and Longitudinal Studies Enhancement Resources (CLOSER)

Economic and Social Research Council

Find out more...

University of Southampton ESRC Doctoral Training Centre DTG 2011

Economic and Social Research Council

Find out more...

Enhancing the MRC National Survey of Health and Development as an interdisciplinary life course study of ageing

Medical Research Council

Find out more...

Functional trajectories and cardiovascular ageing

Medical Research Council

Find out more...

Life course determinants of physical capability and musculoskeletal ageing

Medical Research Council

Find out more...

King’s College London UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship programme (MR/R016372/1)

NIHR Maudsley BRC

National Institute for Health Research

Find out more...



  • Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences

Published in

PLoS One






Public Library of Science (PLoS)


  • VoR (Version of Record)

Rights holder

© Lessof et al.

Publisher statement

This is an Open Access Article. It is published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY). Full details of this licence are available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Acceptance date


Publication date


Copyright date





  • en


Prof Rebecca Hardy. Deposit date: 11 August 2023

Article number


Usage metrics

    Loughborough Publications


    No categories selected



    Ref. manager