ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2023
Validation of a Remote Monitoring Blood Pressure Device in Pregnancy.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital and AI-assisted approaches across the preeclampsia care pathway: a scoping review.AJOG global reports · 2026Article
- Molecular Variants inInternational journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Relevance of Serum Levels and Functional Genetic Variants in Vitamin D Receptor Gene among Saudi Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Nutrients · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Ideal Life Blood Pressure Manager measures blood pressure (BP) and automatically transmits results to the patient's medical record independent of internet access, but has not been validated. Our objective was to conduct a validation study of the Ideal Life BP Manager in pregnant women using a validation protocol.
methodsPregnant participants were enrolled into three subgroups per the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization protocol: normotensive (systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 140 and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90), hypertensive without proteinuria (SBP ≥ 140 or DBP ≥ 90), and preeclampsia (SBP ≥ 140 or DBP ≥ 90 with proteinuria). Two trained research staff used a mercury sphygmomanometer to validate the device, alternating sphygmomanometer, and device readings for a total of 9 measurements.
resultsAmong 51 participants, the mean SBP and DBP differences and standard deviations between the device and the mean staff measurements for all participants were 1.7 ± 7.1 and 1.5 ± 7.0 mm Hg, respectively. The standard deviations of the individual participant's paired device and mean staff SBP and DBP measurements were 6.0 and 6.4 mm Hg, respectively. The device was more likely to overestimate rather than underestimate BP (SBP: mean difference = 1.67, 95% CI [-12.15 to 15.49]; DBP: mean difference = 1.51, 95% CI [-12.26 to 15.28]). Most paired readings had a difference of less than 10 mm Hg across averaged paired readings.
conclusionThe Ideal Life BP Manager met internationally recognized validity criteria in this sample of pregnant women.
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.