ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Measurement of Blood Pressure by Ultrasound-The Applicability of Devices, Algorithms and a View in Local Hemodynamics.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Ultrasound Imaging in Continuous Blood Vessel Area and Velocity Data Acquisition for Determining the Local Pulse Wave Velocity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Unobtrusive Biosensing in Intelligent Vehicles: Sensors, Algorithms, and Integration Challenges.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Memory-efficient low-compute segmentation algorithms for bladder-monitoring smart ultrasound devices.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring and Prediction Using a Machine Learning Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDue to ongoing technical progress, the ultrasonic measurement of blood pressure (BP) as an alternative to oscillometric measurement (NIBP) or the continuous non-invasive arterial pressure method (CNAP) moves further into focus. The US method offers several advantages over NIBP and CNAP, such as deep tissue penetration and the utilization of different arterial locations. APPROACH: Ten healthy subjects (six female, aged 30.9 ± 4.6 years) volunteered in our investigation. In the ultrasonic BP measurement, we differentiated between the directly measured (pulsatile diastolic and systolic vessel diameter) and indirectly calculated variables at three different artery locations on both arms, with two different ultrasound devices in the transversal and longitudinal directions of the transducer. Simultaneously, NIBP monitoring served as reference BP, while CNAP monitored the steady state condition of the arm under investigation. The Moens-Korteweg algorithm (MKE) and the algorithm of the working group of San Diego (SanD) were selected for the indirectly calculated ultrasonic BP data. MAIN
resultsWith US, we were able to measure the BP at each selected arterial position. Due to the investigation setup, we found small but significant interactions of the main effects. Bland and Altman analysis revealed that US-BP measurement was similar to NIBP, with superior accuracy when compared to the established CNAP method. In addition, US-BP measurement showed that the measurement accuracy of both arms can be regarded as identical. In a detailed comparison of the selected arterial vascular sections, systematic discrepancies between the right and left arm could be observed.
conclusionIn our pilot study, we measured BP effectively and accurately by US using two different devices. Our findings suggest that ultrasonic BP measurement is an adequate alternative for live and continuous hemodynamic monitoring.
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.