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.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [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 · 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.