ArticleHypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension2025
Mean arterial pressure differences between cuff oscillometric and invasive blood pressure.
Article in Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differences between automated cuff oscillometric blood pressure (BP) and invasive measurements are well described, but the causes are not fully understood. Automated BP devices record cuff oscillometric mean arterial pressure (MAP) as a key measurement step that is presumed to be accurate, but if not, could create error in cuff systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) estimations. This has never been determined and was the aim of the study. Data from five studies with similar protocols were analysed (N = 262 patients undergoing coronary angiography, 61 ± 11 years, 65% male). Cuff oscillometric MAP was measured using five different models of automated cuff BP devices simultaneous to invasively measured MAP (fluid-filled or solid-state catheters). Cuff SBP and DBP were estimated by device-specific algorithms. Differences (∆) were calculated as cuff-invasive aortic BP. There were significant associations between ∆MAP and ∆SBP in four out of five devices (unstandardised β range = 0.42-1.04). The ∆MAP explained 6-52% of the variance in ∆SBP. In the same four devices, there were significant associations between ∆MAP and ∆DBP (unstandardised β range = 0.57-0.97) and ∆MAP explained 35-52% of the variance in ∆DBP. In conclusion, there are differences between cuff oscillometric MAP and invasive MAP which are associated with ∆SBP and ∆DBP. Further research is required to improve cuff oscillometric BP and greater transparency needed to understand algorithms used in these devices.
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.