ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022
Validations of Blood Pressure Measuring Devices Using Recognized Protocols.
Review 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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wrist-based wearable oscillometric blood pressure monitoring during Ramadan: a comparative study with standard devices.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- AI algorithm for personalized resource allocation and treatment of hemorrhage casualties.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- Using Artificial Intelligence to Develop a Multivariate Model with a Machine Learning Model to Predict Complications in Mexican Diabetic Patients without Arterial Hypertension (National Nested Case-Control Study): Metformin and Elevated Normal Blood Pressure Are Risk Factors, and Obesity Is Protective.Journal of diabetes research · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preventing, diagnosing, and controlling high blood pressure is a global health priority. The self-measurement of blood pressure is therefore fundamental and should be done with devices validated by recognized protocols, although most are not. The most widely used and current protocols are the 2010 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) revision and the 2018 Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)/ ESH/ the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) universal standard, respectively. The aim of this study was to find out which blood pressure measuring devices have been adequately validated by the above protocols. A narrative review of blood pressure device validations was conducted by searching the PubMed database. From 52 records identified, 37 studies were included. Most validations follow the 2010 revision and only six follow the 2018 protocol, which is more demanding. Almost all validated sphygmomanometers are automated oscillometric sphygmomanometers in the general population. Wrist devices and devices combining new technologies are also validated, as well as in specific populations, such as the obese, pregnant women, or children. There is sufficient evidence to confirm that the universal AAMI/ ESH/ISO standard is considered the protocol of the century. However, it is necessary to increase the number of validations following it and, above all, validations of the new technologies that are invading the current market.
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.