ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2019
Measurement of central augmentation index by three different methods and techniques: Agreement among Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- The Impact of Smoking on Arterial Stiffness in Young Adults: A Prospective Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Association of arterial stiffness and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the elderly population - results from the CARLA study.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Article
- Pulse Wave Velocity for Risk Stratification of Patients with Aortic Aneurysm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of Amlodipine/Nebivolol combination therapy on central BP and PWV compared to Amlodipine/Valsartan combination therapy.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Relation between Oscillometric Measurement of Central Hemodynamics and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hypertensive Patients.Pulse (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Associations of Sex Hormones and Hormonal Status With Arterial Stiffness in a Female Sample From Reproductive Years to Menopause.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Reference values of office central blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, and augmentation index recorded by means of the Mobil-O-Graph PWA monitor.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2020Article
- Measurement of central augmentation index by three different methods and techniques: Agreement among Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices.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
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wave reflection at central arteries consists of a major component of left ventricular afterload. Central augmentation index (AIx) is the most widely used surrogate of wave reflection. Recent technological developments now provide the ability to obtain, non-invasively, aortic, or carotid pressure waves and measure AIx based on various algorithms of pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to compare AIx measurements performed by the Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph apparatuses. Recordings by each device in randomized order were performed with 5-minute interval at 211 individuals (age 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 67.8% males) who underwent diagnostic cardiovascular assessment. All measurements were obtained at the supine position, and AIx was calculated using the formula AIx = 100 × (Augmentation pressure)/(Pulse Pressure). Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Mean difference (bias) ± one standard deviation of difference (with limits of agreement) of AIx between different devices was as follows: (a) Mobil-O-Graph vs Complior: -2.1 ± 14.8% (-31.1% to 26.9%), (b) Arteriograph vs Complior: 12.9 ± 14.6% (-15.7% to 41.5%), and (c) Mobil-O-Graph vs Arteriograph: -10.8 ± 16.9% (-43.9% to 22.3%). The three examined devices exerted significant differences in central AIx estimation which makes the three devices non-interchangeable for wave reflection assessment. However, the Mobil-O-Graph device showed the highest agreement (lowest bias) with the Complior system as regards to the AIx measurement.
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.