ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Factors That May Impact the Noninvasive Measurement of Central Blood Pressure Compared to Invasive Measurement: The MATCHY Study.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 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.
- Continuous Estimation of Blood Pressure by Utilizing Seismocardiogram Signal Features in Relation to Electrocardiogram.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Aortic systolic and pulse pressure invasively and non-invasively obtained: Comparative analysis of recording techniques, arterial sites of measurement, waveform analysis algorithms and calibration methods.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Direct estimation of central aortic pressure from measured or quantified mean and diastolic brachial blood pressure: agreement with invasive records.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Central-to-peripheral blood pressure amplification: role of the recording site, technology, analysis approach, and calibration scheme in invasive and non-invasive data agreement.Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Calibration affects central blood pressure (BP) estimation accuracy. Factors influencing the accuracy of noninvasive central BP measurement, type of calibration method implemented (systolic/diastolic BP or mean/diastolic BP), and type of BP measurement device used (devices using the transfer function method, directly measurement from the carotid artery, and the transfer function-like method), were investigated. Fifty participants (aged 62.4 ± 8.9 years) without overt heart diseases were recruited. Invasive aortic and radial BP was measured. Simultaneously, noninvasive central BP was measured using three types of devices. The mean invasive aortic BP was 127 ± 19/95 ± 14 mmHg. Noninvasive central BP tended to be slightly lower than invasive BP, though without statistical significance. The type of calibration method did not significantly influence the noninvasive cSBP measurements (
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.