SynthesisAnaesthesia2026
Accuracy and precision of continuous, non-invasive blood pressure devices: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Anaesthesia, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReliable continuous non-invasive blood pressure monitoring technology should support clinicians to maintain blood pressure within appropriate limits peri-operatively. Previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding measurement accuracy.
methodsThis systematic review and six meta-analyses evaluated the accuracy and precision of non-invasive continuous arterial blood pressure measurement technologies (volume clamp technology, applanation tonometry and photoplethysmography) compared with invasive arterial measurement in adults. We analysed pooled bias (mean difference between non-invasive and invasive measurement), standard deviation and limits of agreement. In each meta-analysis, mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were analysed separately. Acceptability was defined according to Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation® (AAMI) criteria.
resultsSixty-five studies were included: two meta-analyses for volume clamp technology (ClearSight™, CNAP™); three meta-analyses for applanation tonometry (T-Line™, Vasotrac™ and N-CAT™); and one meta-analysis for photoplethysmography technology. For volume clamp technologies, none met AAMI criteria for bias and SD in relation to MAP, SBP and DBP. T-Line, Vasotrac and N-CAT met the AAMI criteria for bias for MAP (2.53 mmHg, 0.36 mmHg, -0.37 mmHg), SBP (-0.07 mmHg, 1.20 mmHg, -3.68 mmHg) and DBP (3.09 mmHg, 1.09 mmHg, 0.84 mmHg), respectively. In terms of standard deviation, only N-CAT (MAP 6.97 mmHg, SBP 7.14, mmHg, DBP 6.55 mmHg) met AAMI criteria for all blood pressure parameters. Photoplethysmography technology met AAMI criteria for bias (MAP -0.09 mmHg, SBP 0.49 mmHg, DBP -0.26 mmHg) and standard deviation (MAP 6.86 mmHg, DBP 6.38 mmHg). DISCUSSION: Overall, the AAMI criteria for bias and SD were not fulfilled for most of the devices tested and wide limits of agreement are of concern. One applanation tonometry device (N-CAT) shows promise. Clinicians should be aware of the lack of interchangeability with invasive blood pressure management.
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.