Trial reportScientific reports2021
Improved agreement and diagnostic accuracy of a cuffless 24-h blood pressure measurement device in clinical practice.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical utility of digital technologies in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Peripheral skin cooling during gravitational challenges in parabolic flight - experimental protocol, implementation, and case study of the CoolFly experiment.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Pulse Wave Velocity: Methodology, Clinical Applications, and Interplay with Heart Rate Variability.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- A prototype photoplethysmography-based cuffless device shows promising results in tracking changes in blood pressure.Frontiers in medical technology · 2024Article
- Effect of Cuff Inflation on Blood Pressure, Arousals, Sleep Efficiency, and Desaturations: Sub-Analysis of the VAST Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The pre-ejection period is a highly stress dependent parameter of paramount importance for pulse-wave-velocity based applications.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Challenges Presented by Cuffless Measurement of Blood Pressure if Adopted for Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypertension.Pulse (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A fusion approach to improve accuracy and estimate uncertainty in cuffless blood pressure monitoring.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The Advent of Cuffless Mobile Device Blood Pressure Measurement: Remaining Challenges and Pitfalls.Korean circulation journal · 2022Review
- Assessment of Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Prediction from PPG and rPPG Signals Using Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- How Should We Measure and Deal with Office Blood Pressure in 2021?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
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
A cuffless blood pressure (BP) device (TestBP) using pulse transit time is in clinical use, but leads to higher BP values compared to a cuff-based 24 h-BP reference device (RefBP). We evaluated the impact of a recent software update on BP results and TestBP's ability to differentiate between normo- and hypertension. 71 individuals had TestBP (Somnotouch-NIBP) and RefBP measurements simultaneously performed on either arm. TestBP results with software version V1.5 were compared to V1.4 and RefBP. Mean 24 h (± SD) BP for the RefBP, TestBP-V1.4 and TestBP-V1.5 were systolic 134.0 (± 17.3), 140.8 (± 20) and 139.1 (± 20) mmHg, and diastolic 79.3 (± 11.7), 85.8 (± 14.1) and 83.5 (± 13.0) mmHg, respectively (p-values < 0.001). TestBP-V1.5 area under the curve (95% confidence interval) versus RefBP for hypertension detection was 0.92 (0.86; 0.99), 0.94 (0.88; 0.99) and 0.77 (0.66; 0.88) for systolic and 0.92 (0.86; 0.99), 0.92 (0.85; 0.99) and 0.84 (0.74; 0.94) for diastolic 24 h, awake and asleep BP respectively. TestBP-V1.5 detected elevated systolic/diastolic mean 24 h-BP with a 95%/90% sensitivity and 65%/70% specificity. Highest Youden's Index was systolic 133 (sensitivity 95%/specificity 80%) and diastolic 87 mmHg (sensitivity 81%/specificity 98%). The update improved the agreement to RefBP. TestBP was excellent for detecting 24 h and awake hypertensive BP values but not for asleep BP values.
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.