SynthesisJournal of human hypertension2010
Determining which automatic digital blood pressure device performs adequately: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of human hypertension, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of mercurial versus digital blood pressure measurement devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of Blood Pressure Measurement Devices in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Validation Studies.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2018Pooled it
- Sources of inaccuracy in the measurement of adult patients' resting blood pressure in clinical settings: a systematic review.Journal of hypertension · 2017Pooled it
- Comparison of devices used to measure blood pressure, grip strength and lung function: A randomised cross-over study.PloS one · 2023Trial
- A new automatic blood pressure kit auscultates for accurate reading with a smartphone: A diagnostic accuracy study.Medicine · 2016Trial
- Accuracy of blood pressure measurements reported in an electronic medical record during routine primary care visits.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2011Trial
- Comparison of blood pressure measurements between the Huawei Watch D smartwatch application and the validated Omron M3 Intellisense device: Observational study.Experimental physiology · 2026Observational
- A comparison of utility of a wrist-worn blood pressure monitor with arm cuff aneroid sphygmomanometer.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Comparison of Blood Pressure Measurements from Clinical Practice and a Research Study At Kaiser Permanente Southern California.American journal of hypertension · 2023Article
- History and Justification of a National Blood Pressure Measurement Validated Device Listing.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Article
- Real-Time Blood Pressure Estimation From Force-Measured Ultrasound.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2018Article
- A Comparison and Calibration of a Wrist-Worn Blood Pressure Monitor for Patient Management: Assessing the Reliability of Innovative Blood Pressure Devices.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel Cuff-Less Blood Pressure Monitoring Device.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2017Article
- Home blood pressure monitoring among adults-American Heart Association Cardiovascular Health Consumer Survey, 2012.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
- Cost effectiveness of medical devices to diagnose pre-eclampsia in low-resource settings.Development engineering · 2017Article
- Automated Versus Manual Blood Pressure Measurement: A Randomized Crossover Trial in the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan: Are Third World Countries Ready for the Change?Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2016Article
- Orthostatic Circulatory Disorders: From Nosology to Nuts and Bolts.American journal of hypertension · 2016Review
- Validation of the OMRON M3500 Blood Pressure Measuring Device Using Normal- and High-Speed Modes in Adult and Specific Populations (Obese and Children) According to AAMI Protocol.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2015Article
- Regular use of a home blood pressure monitor by hypertensive adults--HealthStyles, 2005 and 2008.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2012Article
- Community-based blood pressure measurement by non-health workers using electronic devices: a validation study.Global health action · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study is to systematically examine the proportion of accurate readings attained by automatic digital blood pressure (BP) devices in published validation studies. We included studies of automatic digital BP devices using recognized protocols. We summarized the data as mean and s.d. of differences between measured and observed BP, and proportion of measurements within 5 mm Hg. We included 79 articles (10,783 participants) reporting 113 studies from 22 different countries. Overall, 25/31 (81%), 37/41 (90%) and 34/35 (97%) devices passed the relevant protocols [BHS, AAMI and ESH international protocol (ESH-IP), respectively]. For devices that passed the BHS protocol, the proportion of measured values within 5 mm Hg of the observed value ranged from 60 to 86% (AAMI protocol 47-94% and ESH-IP 54-89%). The results for the same device varied significantly when a different protocol was used (Omron HEM-907 80% of readings were within 5 mm Hg using the AAMI protocol compared with 62% with the ESH-IP). Even devices with a mean difference of zero show high variation: a device with 74% of BP measurements within 5 mm Hg would require six further BP measurements to reduce variation to 95% of readings within 5 mm Hg. Current protocols for validating BP monitors give no guarantee of accuracy in clinical practice. Devices may pass even the most rigorous protocol with as few as 60% of readings within 5 mm Hg of the observed value. Multiple readings are essential to provide clinicians and patients with accurate information on which to base diagnostic and treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.