ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2022
A model for early failure prediction of blood pressure measurement devices in a stepped validation approach.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- A model for early failure prediction of blood pressure measurement devices in a stepped validation approach.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- Comparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements-A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood pressure monitoring (BPM) devices have to be validated according to strict international validation protocols. Each protocol requests a specific number of participants to be included. All protocols use vast amounts of resources, as three people have to be present for every measurement, making trials costly, especially when the manufacturer has no intention to execute a validation study, reflected in the low share of validated in the commercially available BPM devices. The aim of our study was to develop criteria, which could detect low accuracy devices that could not pass a validation protocol early in the course of the validation process. The 2010 European Society of Hypertension International Protocol (ESH-IP) and the Universal Standard for Validation of BPM devices (AAMI/ESH/ISO) were scrutinized for criteria which can be used for preclusion of passing. Based on this, we developed a fail model. We found that a BPM device cannot pass the ESH-IP protocol, if there are ≥27, 13, or 4 single measurements differing more than 5, 10, or 15 mmHg, respectively, from the reference. For the AAMI/ESH/ISO protocol, we developed a model, which calculates best-case standard deviations (SDs) to detect SDs which would prevent the passing of the protocol before its completion, making a stepwise validation process possible. In conclusion, we found that our model is able to predict failure of low-accuracy BPM devices early during a validation protocol if used in a stepwise-approach. This can be useful to keep costs of validation studies low and to enable investigator-initiated trials.
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.