ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2023
Blood Pressure Measurement Based on the Camera and Inertial Measurement Unit of a Smartphone: Instrument Validation Study.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of photoplethysmography-based blood pressure determinations during long-term and short-term remote cardiac monitoring: the RECAMO study.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Remote Photoplethysmography Technology for Blood Pressure and Hemoglobin Level Assessment in the Preoperative Assessment Setting: Algorithm Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- A finger on the pulse of cardiovascular health: estimating blood pressure with smartphone photoplethysmography-based pulse waveform analysis.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- A method for blood pressure hydrostatic pressure correction using wearable inertial sensors and deep learning.Npj biosensing · 2025Article
- Upper-Arm Photoplethysmographic Sensor with One-Time Calibration for Long-Term Blood Pressure Monitoring.Biosensors · 2023Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Even though several mobile apps that can measure blood pressure have been developed, the data about the accuracy of these apps are limited. Objective: We assessed the accuracy of AlwaysBP (test) in blood pressure measurement compared with the standard, cuff-based, manual method of brachial blood pressure measurement (reference). Methods: AlwaysBP is a smartphone software that estimates systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) based on pulse transit time (PTT). PTT was calculated with a finger photoplethysmogram and seismocardiogram using, respectively, the camera and inertial measurement unit sensor of a commercially available smartphone. After calculating PTT, SBP and DBP were estimated via the Bramwell-Hill and Moens-Korteweg equations. A calibration process was carried out 3 times for each participant to determine the input parameters of the equations. This study was conducted from March to August 2021 at Chungnam National University Sejong Hospital with 87 participants aged between 19 and 70 years who met specific conditions. The primary analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the test method compared with the reference method for the entire study population. The secondary analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the test method for up to 4 weeks in 15 participants. At enrollment, gender, arm circumference, and blood pressure distribution were considered according to current guidelines. Results: Among the 87 study participants, 45 (52%) individuals were male, and the average age was 35.6 (SD 10.4) years. Hypertension was diagnosed in 14 (16%) participants before this study. The mean test and reference SBPs were 120.0 (SD 18.8) and 118.7 (SD 20.2) mm Hg, respectively (difference: mean 1.2, SD 7.1 mm Hg). The absolute differences between the test and reference SBPs were <5, <10, and <15 mm Hg in 57.5% (150/261), 84.3% (220/261 ), and 94.6% (247/261) of measurements. The mean test and reference DBPs were 80.1 (SD 12.6) and 81.1 (SD 14.4) mm Hg, respectively (difference: mean -1.0, SD 6.0 mm Hg). The absolute differences between the test and reference DBPs were <5, <10, and <15 mm Hg in 75.5% (197/261), 93.9% (245/261), and 97.3% (254/261) of measurements, respectively. The secondary analysis showed that after 4 weeks, the differences between SBP and DBP were 0.1 (SD 8.8) and -2.4 (SD 7.6) mm Hg, respectively. Conclusions: AlwaysBP exhibited acceptable accuracy in SBP and DBP measurement compared with the standard measurement method, according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization protocol criteria. However, further validation studies with a specific validation protocol designed for cuffless blood pressure measuring devices are required to assess clinical accuracy. This technology can be easily applied in everyday life and may improve the general population's awareness of hypertension, thus helping to control it.
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.