Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38997475›Full record

ReviewJournal of human hypertension2024

Wearable cuffless blood pressure tracking: when will they be good enough?

Aletta E Schutte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of human hypertension, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

1 author.

Aletta E SchutteSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. a.schutte@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9217-4937

Funding

Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) APP2017504
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearable health monitoring is a multibillion-dollar industry. But the holy grail is probably getting it right for blood pressure monitoring without a cuff, because raised blood pressure is very common and the leading cause of death in the world. Many have tried and failed, but industry is persisting: numerous cuffless wearable blood pressure devices are on the market, several technologies have been developed, hundreds of patents are registered every year, and some devices already have regulatory approval. However, to convince the die-hard blood pressure critic is a different ball game. To understand the challenges of currently accepted methods and cuffless devices, I performed a 24-h blood pressure monitoring self-test, including measurements when awake, asleep and watching an intense match of the Rugby World Cup final, with the purpose to demonstrate the challenges and opportunities we face. Blood pressure was monitored using five different devices simultaneously: validated left and right arm cuff blood pressure, and three cuffless wearable devices (wrist-band, chest patch and a ring). Whilst none of these devices proved to be perfect in capturing a physiologically challenging measure, namely blood pressure, it emphasised that our current practice of a single blood pressure measurement in clinical practice should be revisited. It further begs the question of when cuffless measurements will be good enough to incorporate in clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Blood PressureWearable Electronic DevicesAdultBlood Pressure DeterminationBlood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryEquipment DesignHumansMaleReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38997475
PMCPMC11387187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.