ArticleIndian pediatrics2025
Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Measurement in Extremely Preterm Neonates: Comparative Analysis of Different Methods.
Article in Indian pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare non-invasive (Doppler and Oscillometric) and invasive (indwelling umbilical arterial catheter, UAC) methods for measuring blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates.
methodsNeonates < 28 weeks gestation were recruited if UAC was inserted as part of their clinical care. Blood pressure measured 4-6 hourly by Oscillometric and Doppler methods was compared with invasive method (10-15 readings/baby).
results438 blood pressure recordings were taken from 11 neonates. Compared to invasive method, non-invasive methods underestimated (P = 0.630) and overestimated (P = 0.431 for > 10% overestimation, P = 0.960 for > 20% overestimation) blood pressure. The frequency of blood pressure being within 10% of UAC reading was higher with the Oscillometric method compared to Doppler (41% vs 17%).
conclusionsCompared to invasive arterial recording, non-invasive methods underestimated as well as overestimated blood pressure in extremely preterm neonates. Oscillometric methods are more reliable compared to Doppler methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167896What 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.