Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27150527›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2016

A New Cuffless Device for Measuring Blood Pressure: A Real-Life Validation Study.

Tessa S Schoot, Mariska Weenk, Tom H van de Belt, Lucien J L P G Engelen, Harry van Goor, Sebastian J H Bredie

Abstract readClinical TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Practical Application of a New Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement Method.Pathophysiology : the official journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cuff-Less Methods for Blood Pressure Telemonitoring.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Wearable Devices in Clinical Trials: Hype and Hypothesis.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tessa S SchootRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5575-617X
Tom H van de BeltORCID 0000-0002-5401-8973
Lucien J L P G EngelenORCID 0000-0002-8455-9367
Sebastian J H BredieORCID 0000-0002-6973-7540

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCuffless blood pressure (BP) monitoring devices, based on pulse transit time, are being developed as an easy-to-use, more convenient, fast, and relatively cheap alternative to conventional BP measuring devices based on cuff occlusion. Thereby they may provide a great alternative to BP self-measurement.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate the performance of the first release of the Checkme Health Monitor (Viatom Technology), a cuffless BP monitor, in a real-life setting. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate whether the posture of the volunteer and the position of the device relative to the heart level would influence its outcomes.

methodsStudy volunteers fell into 3 BP ranges: high (>160 mmHg), normal (130-160 mmHg), and low (<130 mmHg). All requirements for test environment, observer qualification, volunteer recruitment, and BP measurements were met according to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) for the validation of BP measurement devices. After calibrating the Checkme device, we measured systolic BP with Checkme and a validated, oscillometric reference BP monitor (RM). Measurements were performed in randomized order both in supine and in sitting position, and with Checkme at and above heart level.

resultsWe recruited 52 volunteers, of whom we excluded 15 (12 due to calibration failure with Checkme, 3 due to a variety of reasons). The remaining 37 volunteers were divided into low (n=14), medium (n=13), and high (n=10) BP ranges. There were 18 men and 19 women, with a mean age of 54.1 (SD 14.5) years, and mean recruitment systolic BP of 141.7 (SD 24.7) mmHg. BP results obtained by RM and Checkme correlated well. In the supine position, the difference between the RM and Checkme was >5 mmHg in 17 of 37 volunteers (46%), of whom 9 of 37 (24%) had a difference >10 mmHg and 5 of 37 (14%) had a difference >15 mmHg.

conclusionsBP obtained with Checkme correlated well with RM BP, particularly in the position (supine) in which the device was calibrated. These preliminary results are promising for conducting further research on cuffless BP measurement in the clinical and outpatient settings.

Indexed as

Blood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCalibrationEuropeFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPosturePulsecardiovascular risk managementcuffless blood pressure monitorhypertensionpatient empowermentwearable device

Identifiers

PMID27150527
PMCPMC4873623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.