If people are going to read medical journal reports, they should first read a book that explains what testing is about like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Studying-Study-Testing-Test-Pediatrics/dp/0781745764/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282488575&sr=1-1 and also this one http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_20?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+trouble+with+medical+journals&sprefix=the+trouble+with+med&ih=14_4_1_1_0_0_0_0_0_1.2_174&fsc=19 written by the former chief editor of the BMJ, who explains just how shoddy the science is in even the most prestigous medical journals (like the BMJ, Lancet, NEJM, JAMA to name four). What the quoted study says is half the time the systolic is there at all three sites, with a bp of more than 76? OK, so? What about the other half of the time? An indicator that is only as good as flipping a coin isn't worth jack, and worrying about it just wastes time: If you base medical judgment on that sort of criteria save time and flip a quarter. The lower BP ranges? Worse than flipping a coin. And what about the outliers in society? People who are in very good health who's resting BP is naturally low? patients who are hypothermic? patients that are hyperthermic? What do you do then, even with a BP cuff? What about people who are having confounding issues - a vasovagal episode along with a bleed? Their BP will be OK for awhile, and then will crash faster than windows-95. Finally, BP's are kind of useless taken alone. If they show a trend (decreasing) thats bad. But it has to be a trend, you can't extrapolate a trend from one (or two, or three) markers. Whats important prehospital is "is the patient stable?" If they are mentating (responding appropriately to questions, or responding appropriately to noxious stimulus) that tells you about all you need to know, but even that is subject to errors, what if the patients baseline status is flaky, and never responds appropriately to questions? What if they're on drugs, or have been exposed to some sort of toxin?