ArticleVascular health and risk management2018
Clinical accuracy of the Omron M3 Comfort
Article in Vascular health and risk management, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Post-COVID-Condition Rehabilitation and Recovery Intervention Delivered in a Football Club Community Trust.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Lack of validated blood pressure devices for use in pregnancy available from Australian pharmacies.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025Article
- Identifying Pertinent Digital Health Topics to Incorporate into Self-Care Pharmacy Education.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Clinical Accuracy of the G.LAB MD41A0 Upper Arm Blood Pressure Monitor in Pregnancy and Pre-Eclampsia Using the AAMI/ESH/ISO as Reference Standard.Vascular health and risk management · 2024Article
- An Opportunity to Better Address Hypertension in Women: Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Article
- Clinical Accuracy of the Withings BPM Connect for Self-Blood Pressure Measurements in Pregnancy and Pre-Eclampsia: Validation According to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization Universal Standard.Vascular health and risk management · 2022Article
- Hypertension in Women Across the Lifespan.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2021Review
- Association between Periodontitis and High Blood Pressure: Results from the Study of Periodontal Health in Almada-Seixal (SoPHiAS).Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Validation of Omron HBP-1100-E Professional Blood Pressure Measuring Device According to the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation Protocol: The PERSIAN Guilan Cohort Study (PGCS).Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic devices for blood pressure (BP) measurements need to go through independent clinical validation as recommended by different authorities, both in general and in special populations such as pregnancy.
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of the Omron Evolv
methodsBoth devices, the Evolv and the M3 Comfort, measure BP at the brachial level using the oscillometric method. The study was performed according to the recently published protocol, the so-called "modified Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)/British Hypertension Society (BHS)/European Society of Hypertension (ESH) protocol" or the "Universal Standard Protocol." Validation of each device included 45 pregnant women in the second and third gestational trimester of whom 15 had pre-eclampsia, 15 had gestational hypertension and 15 were normotensives. BP differences between the observer and the device BP values were classified into three categories (≤5, ≤10, and ≤15 mmHg) and the mean BP differences (test vs reference) and its SD were calculated.
resultsBoth devices, the Evolv and the M3 Comfort, achieved a grade A/A in both pregnancy and pre-eclampsia. The mean difference (SD) between the mercury standard and the device BP values in pregnancy were: 1) for the Evolv of -0.7±2.3 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and -0.1±1.8 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (DBP); 2) for the M3 Comfort of -1.6±2.8 mmHg for SBP and -0.1±2.3 mmHg for DBP.
conclusionBoth devices, the Evolv and the M3 Comfort, achieved a grade A/A for both SBP and DBP and fulfill the validation protocol criteria in pregnancy and pre-eclampsia. Consequently, these two devices can be recommended for home BP measurements in this specific population.
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.