ArticleJournal of anesthesia2024
A comparison of invasive arterial blood pressure measurement with oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure measurement in patients with sepsis.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Should Aggressive Blood Pressure Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Be Guided with Invasive Blood Pressure Monitoring?Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Comparison of invasive and noninvasive blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients receiving norepinephrine.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Should I Target the Blood Pressure from the Arterial Line or the Cuff? A Practical Approach for Dealing with Widely Discordant Measurements.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare non-invasive oscillometric blood pressure (NIBP) measurement with invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) measurement in patients with sepsis.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the agreement between IBP and NIBP using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Paired blood pressure measurements of mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were compared using Bland-Altman analysis and paired Student's t test. We also focus on the effect of norepinephrine (NE) on the agreement between the two methods and the association between blood pressure and mortality during intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
resultsA total of 96,673 paired blood pressure measurements from 6060 unique patients were analyzed in the study. In Bland-Altman analysis, the bias (± SD, 95% limits of agreement) was 6.21 mmHg (± 12.05 mmHg, - 17.41 to 29.83 mmHg) for MAP, 0.39 mmHg (± 19.25 mmHg, - 37.34 to 38.12 mmHg) for SBP, and 0.80 mmHg (± 12.92 mmHg, - 24.52 to 26.12 mmHg) for DBP between the two techniques. Similarly, large limits of agreement were shown in different groups of NE doses. NE doses significantly affected the agreement between IBP and NIBP. SBP between the two methods gave an inconsistent assessment of patients' risk of ICU mortality.
conclusionIBP and NIBP were not interchangeable in septic patients. Clinicians should be aware that non-invasive MAP was clinically and significantly underestimated invasive MAP.
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.