ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Pressure Monitoring Systems.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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.
- Exploring Continuous Pressure Monitoring to Inform Decisions for Pressure Injuries in the Community: Secondary Analysis Using a Mobility and Pressure Exposure Algorithm.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Technical Characteristics and Biomedical Applications of Flexible Pressure Sensor Matrices: A Scoping Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Relationship between body segment movements and center of pressure shifts during trunk lean movements while sitting in healthy adults.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring interface pressure is currently used in a variety of settings, e.g., automotive or clinical, to evaluate pressure distribution at support surface interfaces. Commercial pressure sensing arrays are employed to monitor and visualise these pressure distributions to aid mattress or cushion selection by assessing their ability to redistribute the pressure magnitudes over vulnerable areas, e.g., the buttock. These technologies vary in configurations and measurement principles, with manufacturers supplying calibration and specifications. This study evaluated the performance of six commercial pressure sensing arrays, which differed in sensor type, configuration, and spatial resolution. Each system was subjected to mechanical compression loading on a standard cushion using a dual hemispherical 'buttock shaped' standard indenter. Pressure parameters were estimated, e.g., contact area, peak pressure index, from the sensing arrays and a comparison between measured and predicted pressure values was performed. The results showed that both contact area and pressures are influenced by the spatial resolution, with higher values associated with systems with the highest resolution. A high variability between systems was observed in the measured pressure, with sensor type driving difference between the observed and the predicted pressures. Further research is needed to establish standards and performance analysis of these technologies.
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.