Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32959103›Full record

ReviewCurrent hypertension reports2020

Cuff Under Pressure for Greater Accuracy.

Dean S Picone, Martin G Schultz, Alun D Hughes, James E Sharman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current hypertension reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dean S PiconeMenzies Institute for Medical Research, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 23, Hobart, 7000, Australia. dean.picone@utas.edu.au.
Martin G SchultzMenzies Institute for Medical Research, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 23, Hobart, 7000, Australia.
Alun D HughesInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
James E SharmanMenzies Institute for Medical Research, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 23, Hobart, 7000, Australia.
University of Tasmania · AUUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo present the evidence that describes what is being measured by upper-arm cuff blood pressure (BP) and the level of accuracy compared with invasive central aortic and brachial BP. Potential causes of inaccuracy and emerging methods are also discussed. RECENT

findingsOn average cuff systolic BP systematically underestimates invasive brachial systolic BP, although in a given individual it may substantially under- or over-estimate central aortic systolic BP. Such errors may affect individual health management outcomes and distort population level data on hypertension prevalence and control. Oscillometric cuff BP is particularly susceptible to inaccuracy in people with high arterial stiffness and with pathophysiological BP waveform shapes. Emerging cuff-less BP methods will be susceptible to inaccuracy if oscillometric cuff BP is used for calibration. The original purpose of cuff BP was to estimate central aortic BP. Recent evidence has shown substantial inaccuracy of oscillometric cuff BP exists for the measurement of invasive central aortic and brachial BP. Thus, development of more accurate BP methods, through better understanding of oscillometric and BP waveform morphology, is needed to improve health outcomes related to high BP.

Indexed as

HypertensionArterial PressureBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationBrachial ArteryHumansOscillometryAortic blood pressureBlood pressure cuffBPBP managementBrachial blood pressureHypertension

Identifiers

PMID32959103
OpenAlexW3087295194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.