ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2023
Accuracy of wearable electronic device compared to manual and automatic methods of blood pressure determination.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Representation of Different Populations in Studies Assessing the Validity of Consumer Wearable Photoplethysmography-Based Measurements: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Reliability and Safety of Smartwatch Blood Pressure and Oxygen Saturation Measurements in Older Adults: Instrument Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Personalized Machine Learning Intervention to Improve Sleep Quality Using Wearable Technology in Healthy Middle-Aged Adults From Mexico City: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Noninvasive biometric monitoring technologies for patients with heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Long-term accuracy and stability of blood pressure measurements from a smartwatch: Prospective validation study.Digital healthArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blood pressure (BP) is the main biomarker for monitoring patients, as its lack of control above values considered normal is a modifiable risk factor for target organ damage. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the wearable electronic device photoplethysmography technology (PPG) Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 in determining BP in young patients compared to manual and automatic methods of BP determination. This is a quantitative and cross-sectional study, following validation protocols for wearable devices and BP measurement. It was carried out with twenty healthy young adults, in which BP was measured using four instruments, namely, standard sphygmomanometer device (manual), automatic arm oscillometric device (reference), wrist oscillometric device, and Smartwatch PPG. Eighty systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) readings were observed. SBP means manual 118 ± 2.20,arm 113 ± 2.54, wrist 118 ± 2.51, and PPG (smartwatch) 113 ± 2.58. Among means, arm and PPG difference is 0.15, arm and wrist 4.95, arm and manual 4.45 wrist with PPG. The mean DBP manual 76.7 ± 1.84, arm 73.6 ± 1.92, wrist 79.3 ± 1.87, and PPG 72.2 ± 1.38. Among means, the difference between the arm and PPG is 1.4 and arm and hand 3.5 mmHg. The correlation shows PPG with manual, arm, and wrist. There was a strong SBP correlation and a moderate DBP correlation between the methods tested, evidencing the accuracy of the PPG smartwatch in relation to the reference method.
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.