Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39271785›Full record

ArticleJournal of human hypertension2024

Accuracy of the WatchBP Office Central as a Type 2 device for non-invasive estimation of central aortic blood pressure in children and adolescents.

Jonathan P Glenning, Kieran Sandhu, Hilary A Harrington, Lucas Eastaugh, Geoffrey K Lane, Joseph J Smolich, Jonathan P Mynard

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Research progress in central aortic pressure estimation algorithms].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
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

7 authors.

Jonathan P GlenningHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Kieran SandhuHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Hilary A HarringtonHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Lucas EastaughHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Geoffrey K LaneHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Joseph J SmolichHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Jonathan P MynardHeart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC, Australia. jonathan.mynard@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5692-2106

Funding

Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) APP1128516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High blood pressure (BP) in childhood is a recognised precursor of elevated cardiovascular risk in adulthood. Brachial BP is normally used for clinical decision making, but central BP may be a better marker of pressure load on the heart. There is a paucity of validated non-invasive, automated devices for estimating central BP in children and adolescents. In this study, we compared the WatchBP Office Central (a Type 2 central pressure estimation device) against a high-fidelity micromanometer in the ascending aorta of anaesthetised patients undergoing clinically-indicated catheterisation (n = 15, age 4-16 years). As a secondary aim, central systolic BP (cSBP) was also compared to two non-invasive estimation methods in 34 awake patients undergoing routine cardiac MRI (age 10-18 years). WatchBP substantially overestimated cSBP compared to the intra-arterial gold-standard reference (26.1 ± 7.4 mmHg), and recruitment was terminated at n = 11 (included in the analysis) due to high statistical certainty that the device would not pass the validation criteria of 5±8 mmHg. WatchBP cSBP was also substantially higher than values obtained from a phase contrast MRI method (11.8 ± 7.9 mmHg) and the SphygmoCor XCEL (13.5 ± 8.9 mmHg) in the awake patient group, which translate to 21-23 mmHg on average after accounting for known/estimated biases in these non-invasive comparators. Compared with invasive central diastolic and systolic BPs, the brachial measures from WatchBP yielded errors of 0.1 ± 5.6 and 12.5 ± 6.0 mmHg respectively. We conclude that the WatchBP substantially overestimates cSBP in children and adolescents. These findings reinforce the need for central BP-measuring devices to be further developed and validated in this population.

Indexed as

Arterial PressureAdolescentAortaBlood Pressure DeterminationChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansHypertensionMalePredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID39271785
PMCPMC11624132

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.