ArticlePloS one2018
Importance of software version for measurement of arterial stiffness: Arteriograph as an example.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of COVID-19 during Pregnancy on Maternal Hemodynamic Function, Angiogenic Markers and Neonatal Outcome.Viruses · 2024Article
- 2024 Recommendations for Validation of Noninvasive Arterial Pulse Wave Velocity Measurement Devices.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend the measurement of arterial stiffness in terms of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) as an important cardio-vascular risk marker. Both aortic PWV and the aortic augmentation index (AIxao) can be measured using different techniques, e.g., the Arteriograph and SphygmoCor. A new version of the software for the Arteriograph (v. 3.0.0.1, TensioMed, Budapest, Hungary; Arteriograph II) is now available. We wanted to determine whether this improved software differs from the previous version (Arteriograph v. 1.9.9.12; Arteriograph I). We compared the estimated aortic PWV (ePWVao) and AIxao measured with both versions of Arteriograph software and analysed the agreement of these values with those measured by SphygmoCor (v. 7.01, AtCor Medical, Sydney, Australia).
methodsEighty-seven subjects without known cardio-vascular disease (23 men and 64 women) aged 54.2 ± 8.7 years (mean ± standard deviation; range 33-68 years) were included in the study. Estimated PWVao and AIxao were measured by both Arteriograph and SphygmoCor. We compared Arteriograph I and Arteriograph II with each other and with SphygmoCor.
resultsEstimated PWVao measured by Arteriograph II was lower than that measured by Arteriograph I, while the AIxao was higher. Divergence in ePWVao values was especially noted above 9 m/s. Estimated PWVao measured by Arteriograph II (7.2 m/s, 6.6-8.0 [median, 25th-75th percentile]) did not differ from that measured by SphygmoCor (7.1 m/s, 6.7-7.9 [median, 25th-75th percentile]). However, the AIao measured by Arteriograph II was significantly higher (P < 0.001).
conclusionRegularly upgraded software versions resulting from continuous technical development are needed for quality improvement of methods. However, the changes in software, even if the basic patented operational algorithm has not changed, may influence the measured values as shown in the present study. Therefore, attention should be paid to the software version of the method used when comparing arterial stiffness results in clinical settings or when performing scientific studies.
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.