ArticlePulse (Basel, Switzerland)2018
Evaluation of the Accuracy of a New Cuffless Magnetoplethysmography Blood Pressure Monitor in Hypertensive Patients.
Article in Pulse (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wearable, cuffless, and portable devices for blood pressure monitoring (2015-2025): a scoping review of technologies, calibration, clinical validation, and regulatory frameworks.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The 2023 wearable photoplethysmography roadmap.Physiological measurement · 2023Review
- Wearable cuffless blood pressure monitoring devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Digital health · 2022Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThere is a growing demand for cuffless blood pressure (BP) measurement as an easy alternative to cuff-occlusion-based BP measurement. We assessed the accuracy of a new cuffless, watch-style BP monitor with a magnetoplethysmography (MPG) sensor compared to two standard auscultatory and oscillatory BP monitors. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA total of 34 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic BP ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥95 mm Hg) were enrolled in the study. BP was measured by two conventional monitors and the new device during the pre-exercise phase, during isometric handgrip exercise, and during the recovery phase (5 min after exercise). The correlation between monitors was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsAlthough two reference monitors produced highly correlated BP measurements, each was differentially correlated with BP measurements obtained by the new MPG monitor. During exercise, the mean difference between systolic BP obtained by the MPG and oscillatory monitors was >7 mm Hg with an ICC of 0.549 (95$ CI 0.264-0.746) in systole and 0.737 (95$ CI 0.534-0.859) in diastole. The ICC between the auscultatory monitor and the MPG monitor was 0.753 (95$ CI 0.559-0.868) in systole and 0.841 (95$ CI 0.706-0.918) in diastole after exercise. Bland-Altman plots also indicated that the performance of the new MPG device was very similar to that of the auscultatory monitor.
conclusionAlthough the performance of the new MPG monitor was comparable to that of the reference monitors used in this study, improved stability and accuracy are necessary for accurate BP evaluation during dynamic activity.
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.