Trial reportMedicine2016
A new automatic blood pressure kit auscultates for accurate reading with a smartphone: A diagnostic accuracy study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03209024 (App Documentation of Electronic BP Readings in Hypertension), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
App Documentation of Electronic BP Readings in Hypertension
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of mercurial versus digital blood pressure measurement devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Lung Auscultation of Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia via a Wireless Stethoscope.International journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
- The Potential of mHealth Applications in Improving Resistant Hypertension Self-Assessment, Treatment and Control.Current hypertension reports · 2019Review
- A convenient method to verify the accuracy of oscillometric blood pressure monitors by the auscultatory method: A smartphone-based app.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The widely used oscillometric automated blood pressure (BP) monitor was continuously questioned on its accuracy. A novel BP kit named Accutension which adopted Korotkoff auscultation method was then devised. Accutension worked with a miniature microphone, a pressure sensor, and a smartphone. The BP values were automatically displayed on the smartphone screen through the installed App. Data recorded in the phone could be played back and reconfirmed after measurement. They could also be uploaded and saved to the iCloud. The accuracy and consistency of this novel electronic auscultatory sphygmomanometer was preliminarily verified here. Thirty-two subjects were included and 82 qualified readings were obtained. The mean differences ± SD for systolic and diastolic BP readings between Accutension and mercury sphygmomanometer were 0.87 ± 2.86 and -0.94 ± 2.93 mm Hg. Agreements between Accutension and mercury sphygmomanometer were highly significant for systolic (ICC = 0.993, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.989-0.995) and diastolic (ICC = 0.987, 95% CI: 0.979-0.991). In conclusion, Accutension worked accurately based on our pilot study data. The difference was acceptable. ICC and Bland-Altman plot charts showed good agreements with manual measurements. Systolic readings of Accutension were slightly higher than those of manual measurement, while diastolic readings were slightly lower. One possible reason was that Accutension captured the first and the last korotkoff sound more sensitively than human ear during manual measurement and avoided sound missing, so that it might be more accurate than traditional mercury sphygmomanometer. By documenting and analyzing of variant tendency of BP values, Accutension helps management of hypertension and therefore contributes to the mobile heath service.
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.