ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
WATCH-BPM-Comparison of a WATCH-Type Blood Pressure Monitor with a Conventional Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor and Auscultatory Sphygmomanometry.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wearable Devices for Remote Monitoring of Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring hemodynamic measurements from the Tromsø Study for prediction of cardiovascular disease using traditional statistical models and machine learning approaches.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Integrating multimodal intelligence in heart failure: AI-driven risk prediction, precision diagnosis, phenotyping, personalized treatment, and prognosis.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Wearable Blood Pressure Monitoring in Resource-Limited Settings: A Co-Design of Sensors, Model, and Deployment.Nano-micro letters · 2026Review
- Wearable, cuffless, and portable devices for blood pressure monitoring (2015-2025): a scoping review of technologies, calibration, clinical validation, and regulatory frameworks.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Accuracy of a wearable watch-type oscillometric blood pressure monitor in rest and ambulatory blood pressure measurements.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2025Article
- WATCH-PR: Comparison of the Pulse Rate of a WATCH-Type Blood Pressure Monitor with the Pulse Rate of a Conventional Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Role of Wearable Devices in Chronic Disease Monitoring and Patient Care: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSmart devices that are able to measure blood pressure (BP) are valuable for hypertension or heart failure management using digital technology. Data regarding their diagnostic accuracy in comparison to standard noninvasive measurement in accordance to Riva-Rocci are sparse. This study compared a wearable watch-type oscillometric BP monitor (Omron HeartGuide), a wearable watch-type infrared BP monitor (Smart Wear), a conventional ambulatory BP monitor, and auscultatory sphygmomanometry.
methodsTherefore, 159 consecutive patients (84 male, 75 female, mean age 64.33 ± 16.14 years) performed observed single measurements with the smart device compared to auscultatory sphygmomanometry (n = 109) or multiple measurements during 24 h compared to a conventional ambulatory BP monitor on the upper arm (n = 50). The two BP monitoring devices were simultaneously worn on the same arm throughout the monitoring period. In a subgroup of 50 patients, single measurements were also performed with an additional infrared smart device.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the difference and the mean of the oscillometric Omron HeartGuide and the conventional method for the single measurement was calculated for both systole (0.765) and diastole (0.732). This is exactly how the ICC was calculated for the individual mean values calculated over the 24 h long-term measurement of the individual patients for both systole (0.880) and diastole (0.829). The ICC between the infrared device and the conventional method was "bad" for SBP (0.329) and DBP (0.025). Therefore, no further long-term measurements were performed with the infrared device.
conclusionThe Omron HeartGuide device provided comparable BP values to the standard devices for single and long-term measurements. The infrared smart device failed to acquire valid measurement data.
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.