ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2023
Optimal Calculation of Mean Pressure From Pulse Pressure.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antihypertensive medication adherence and associated risk factors among adults with hypertension: a cross-sectional study in a teaching hospital, Ghana.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Blood pressure indices for predicting incident cardiovascular disease: A 13-year follow-up study in Japanese population.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- The influence of vegetarian and omnivorous diet quality on metabolic profiles and cardiovascular risk.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- BAN Score and Distinct Early Cardiometabolic Risk Signatures in a Non-Diabetic Population: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Adherence, Persistence, and Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Mureș County, Romania.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Measurements of Abdominal Obesity are Associated with Metabolic Syndrome Severity Independent of Hypertensive Phenotype in White but not Black Young Adults.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Adaptive remodeling of rat adrenomedullary stimulus-secretion coupling in a chronic hypertensive environment.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2024Article
- Arterial stiffness and incident chronic kidney disease: a large population-based cohort study.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- Beat-to-beat analysis of hemodynamic response to mental and psychological stress in sickle cell anemia.Journal of sickle cell disease · 2024Article
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
backgroundThere are six different formulae for estimating mean arterial pressure (MAP) from systolic and diastolic pressure readings. This study is to determine the optimum formula for calculating MAP when compared to the gold standard approach, which is the area under the curve of an invasively measured pulse waveform divided by the cardiac cycle duration.
methodsEight live pigs were used as the experimental model for the invasive measurement of femoral artery pressure (AP) by a fluid filled catheter connected with a pressure transducer. In addition, intraocular pressure (IOP) and jugular vein pressure (JVP) were also recorded. The mean pressure (MP) was calculated from digital waveforms sampled at 1,000 points per second with the six formulae and area method for AP, IOP and JVP.
resultsThe absolute mean difference between the area MAP and each formula's MAP ranged from 0.98 to 3.23 mm Hg. Our study also found that even under physiological conditions, area MAP can vary between successive pulses by up to 5 mm Hg. For mean IOP and JVP, the mean difference between a formula's MP and the area method's was less than 1 mm Hg for most formulae. With the pooled data, there was excellent agreement amongst all formulae for MAP with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) ranging from 0.97 to 0.99, while the ICC of most formulae for IOP and JVP was 1.0.
conclusionsOur study suggests that all current formulae are adequate for estimating MAP, though some formulae are not suitable for mean IOP and JVP.
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.