ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Systolic Pressure and Pulse Rate Range Performance Comparison of Seven Non-Invasive Blood Pressure Monitors.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate (PR) measurement range and determination time of selected non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitors. Patients and Methods: Seven oscillometric NIBP monitors underwent laboratory-based simulations of high and low BP and PR values to determine the outer bounds that each monitor could measure. Reliability was determined by devices' ability to detect simulation signals of chosen BP/PR values. Determination times were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA followed by post-hoc Tukey honestly significant difference. Results: All monitors reliably reported 50-180 mmHg and 80-140 bpm simulations, except Connex which provided the narrowest ranges (only reliable at 140 and 230 bpm; 50-180 mmHg). B125 and Efficia CM120 had the widest ranges for PR (30-240 bpm and 30-220 bpm, respectively) and systolic BP (30-250 mmHg for both). Connex presented the quickest mean determination time (19.23s), followed by B125 (24.14s). Conclusion: NIBP monitor performances varied considerably outside mid-range BP/PR and there were significant differences across determination times. NIBP devices that strike a balance between range and speed may provide the greatest clinical utility.
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.