ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2025
The feasibility of noninvasive blood pressure monitoring in infants with a birth weight under 500 grams.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo quantify agreement between oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) and invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) in infants <500 g during the first postnatal week. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort of infants with a birth weight <500 g admitted to a tertiary NICU (2011-2023). Paired IBP-NIBP readings obtained within 1 min were analyzed. Bland-Altman plots quantified bias and 95% limits of agreement for systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP).
resultsThirty-six infants (median gestation of 26.2 weeks) contributed 337 paired measurements. Mean (±SD) IBP vs. NIBP were 47.3 ± 10.4 vs. 49.4 ± 9.3 mm Hg (SBP), 29.2 ± 7.0 vs. 28.3 ± 8.2 mm Hg (DBP) and 35.1 ± 7.7 vs. 35.2 ± 7.9 mm Hg (MAP). Mean bias was +2.1 ± 6.8 mm Hg (SBP), -0.9 ± 6.7 mm Hg (DBP) and +0.1 ± 5.4 mm Hg (MAP), satisfying AAMI/ESH/ISO criteria (≤5 mm Hg mean difference, ≤8 mm Hg SD). Bias remained <3 mm Hg without inotropes; MAP bias rose to +1.3 mm Hg with inotropic support.
conclusionOscillometric NIBP compared to IBP provided acceptable agreement in hemodynamically stable neonates <500 g. Whereas, invasive arterial monitoring remains preferable in unstable neonates.
Identifiers
40925943What 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.