ArticleInternational Journal of Cardiology. Hypertension2020
Beat-to-beat blood pressure measurement using a cuffless device does not accurately reflect invasive blood pressure.
Article in International Journal of Cardiology. Hypertension, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical utility of digital technologies in Parkinson's disease.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Accuracy of non-invasive cuffless blood pressure in the intensive care unit: Promises and challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Measuring blood pressure by a cuffless device using the pulse transit time.International Journal of Cardiology. Hypertension · 2021Article
- Interpretation of Heart Rate Variability: The Art of Looking Through a Keyhole.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe availability of an accurate continuous cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitor would provide an alternative to both invasive continuous BP and 24-h intermittent cuff-based BP monitors. We investigated the accuracy of a cuffless beat to beat (BtB) device compared to both invasive BP (iBP) and brachial cuff BP (cBP) measurements.
methodsPatients undergoing clinically indicated coronary angiography (CA) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were recruited. After calibration to an initial cBP reading, BP was measured simultaneously using a BtB device (SOMNOtouch NIBP), brachial artery iBP, and cBP at two time points.
resultsThe study was terminated early due to a significant bias. Recordings from 14 participants (11 males, mean age 68.4 years) were analysed. Readings from BtB BP were higher than iBP. The bias between BtB BP and iBP was 34.3 mmHg (95%CI: 27.0, 41.5) and 23.6 mmHg (95%CI: 16.8, 30.4) for SBP and DBP respectively. A similar bias was seen between BtB BP and cBP, but cBP and iBP were largely in agreement.
conclusionsIn patients undergoing CA/PCI, significant differences were detected between BtB BP and both invasively measured and cuff BP. The non-invasive BtB BP measurement device tested is not suitable for clinical or research use.
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.