Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2022
Evaluation of a novel optical smartphone blood pressure application: a method comparison study against invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring in intensive care unit patients.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04728477 (Accuracy, Precision and Trending Abilities of Novel Optical Smartphone Application for Blood Pressure Measurements in Critically Ill Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Accuracy, Precision and Trending Abilities of Novel Optical Smartphone Application for Blood Pressure Measurements in Critically Ill Patients: A Method Comparison Study Against the Arterial Line as the Reference Method
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and precision of continuous, non-invasive blood pressure devices: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Anaesthesia · 2026Pooled it
- Wearable Blood Pressure Monitoring Devices: Understanding Heterogeneity in Design and Evaluation.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2024Pooled it
- From Cuffs to Code: Machine Learning in Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring.Anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine · 2026Review
- Anesthetists' awareness and readiness for telemonitoring in perioperative care: a web-based cross-sectional survey in Northwest Ethiopia.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Cuffless Blood Pressure Measurement: Where Do We Actually Stand?Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2025Review
- Accuracy of the smartphone blood pressure measurement solution OptiBP to track blood pressure changes in pregnant women.Journal of hypertension · 2025Article
- A review of machine learning methods for non-invasive blood pressure estimation.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Review
- Hemodynamic Stability Between Spinal and General Anesthesia in Patient Undergoing Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Smartphone-Based versus Non-Invasive Automatic Oscillometric Brachial Cuff Blood Pressure Measurements: A Prospective Method Comparison Volunteer Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArterial hypertension is a worldwide public health problem. While it is currently diagnosed and monitored non-invasively using the oscillometric method, having the ability to measure blood pressure (BP) using a smartphone application could provide more widespread access to hypertension screening and monitoring. In this observational study in intensive care unit patients, we compared blood pressure values obtained using a new optical smartphone application (OptiBP™; test method) with arterial BP values obtained using a radial artery catheter (reference method) in order to help validate the technology.
methodsWe simultaneously measured three BP values every hour for five consecutive hours on two consecutive days using both the smartphone and arterial methods. Bland-Altman and error grid analyses were used for agreement analysis between both approaches. The performance of the smartphone application was investigated using the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) definitions, which require the bias ± SD between two technologies to be below 5 ± 8 mmHg.
resultsAmong the 30 recruited patients, 22 patients had adequate OptiBP™ values and were thus analyzed. In the other 8 patients, no BP could be measured due to inadequate signals. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean of the differences ± SD between both methods of 0.9 ± 7 mmHg for mean arterial pressure (MAP), 0.2 ± 14 mmHg for systolic arterial pressure (SAP), and 1.1 ± 6 mmHg for diastolic arterial pressure (DAP). Error grid analysis demonstrated that the proportions of measurement pairs in risk zones A to E were 88.8% (no risk), 10% (low risk), 1% (moderate risk), 0% (significant risk), and 0% (dangerous risk) for MAP and 88.4%, 8.6%, 3%, 0%, 0%, respectively, for SAP.
conclusionsThis method comparison study revealed good agreement between BP values obtained using the OptiBP™ and those done invasively. The OptiBP™ fulfills the AAMI/ISO universal standards for MAP and DAP (but not SAP). Error grid showed that the most measurements (≥ 97%) were in risk zones A and B.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04728477.
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.