Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37405672›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2023

Accuracy of wearable electronic device compared to manual and automatic methods of blood pressure determination.

Lindercy Francisco Tomé de Souza Lins, Ellany Gurgel Cosme do Nascimento, José Antonio da Silva Júnior, Thales Allyrio Araújo de Medeiros Fernandes, Micássio Fernandes de Andrade, Cléber de Mesquita Andrade

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lindercy Francisco Tomé de Souza LinsFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Norte, Atirador Miguel Antonio da Silva St, Mossoró, RN, 59607-360, Brazil.
Ellany Gurgel Cosme do NascimentoFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Norte, Atirador Miguel Antonio da Silva St, Mossoró, RN, 59607-360, Brazil.
José Antonio da Silva JúniorFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Norte, Atirador Miguel Antonio da Silva St, Mossoró, RN, 59607-360, Brazil. joseantonio.030@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7965-3095
Thales Allyrio Araújo de Medeiros FernandesFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Norte, Atirador Miguel Antonio da Silva St, Mossoró, RN, 59607-360, Brazil.
Micássio Fernandes de AndradeCentro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal Rural Do Rio Grande Do Norte, Mossoró, Brazil.
Cléber de Mesquita AndradeFaculdade de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Do Estado Do Rio Grande Do Norte, Atirador Miguel Antonio da Silva St, Mossoró, RN, 59607-360, Brazil.
Universidade do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HypertensionWearable Electronic DevicesBlood PressureBlood Pressure DeterminationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSphygmomanometersYoung AdultBlood pressure determinationDimensional measurement accuracyWearable electronic devices

Identifiers

PMID37405672
OpenAlexW4383186045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.