ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements-A Pilot Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- Pulse wave-based evaluation of the blood-supply capability of patients with heart failure via machine learning.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- Upper-Arm Photoplethysmographic Sensor with One-Time Calibration for Long-Term Blood Pressure Monitoring.Biosensors · 2023Article
- Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Applications: Ushering in a New Era of Wearable Cardiac Devices? Comment on Vischer et al. Comparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements-A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reply to Hungerford, S.; Bart, N. Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Applications: Ushering in a New Era of Wearable Cardiac Devices? Comment on "Vischer et al. Comparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements-A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: New cuffless technologies attempting blood-pressure measurements (BPM) offer possibilities to improve hypertension awareness and control. The aim of this study was to compare a smartphone application (app)-based algorithm with office BPM (OBPM). (2) Methods: We included consecutive patients with an indication for ambulatory BPM. The smartphone app (RIVA digital) acquired the pulse wave in the fingers’ arterial bed using the phone’s camera and estimated BP based on photoplethysmographic (PPG) waveforms. Measurements were alternatingly taken with an oscillometric cuff-based device and smartphone BPM (AppBP) on two consecutive days. AppBP were calibrated to the first OBPM. Each AppBP was compared to its CuffBP (mean of the previous/following OBPM). (3) Results: 50 participants were included, resulting in 50 AppBP values on Day 1 and 33 on Day 2 after exclusion of 225 AppBP due to insufficient quality. The mean ± SD of the differences between AppBP and CuffBP was 0.7 ± 9.4/1.0 ± 4.5 mmHg (p-value 0.739/0.201) on Day 1 and 2.6 ± 8.2/1.3 ± 4.1 mmHg (p-value 0.106/0.091) on Day 2 for systolic/diastolic values, respectively. There were no significant differences between the deviations on Day 1 and Day 2 (p-value 0.297/0.533 for systolic/diastolic values). Overall, there were 10 (12%) systolic measurement pairs differing by >15 mmHg. (4) Conclusions: In this pilot evaluation, the RIVA Digital app shows promising results when compared to oscillometric cuff-based measurements, especially regarding diastolic values. Its differences between AppBP−CuffBP have a good stability one day after calibration. Before clinical use, signal acquisition needs improvement and the algorithm needs to undergo formal validation against a gold-standard BPM method.
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.