Observational studyBMJ open2026
Skin tone and diagnostic equity in contactless blood pressure screening: a prospective observational field evaluation of remote photoplethysmography in Nigeria.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- Disparities in Blood Pressure Measurement.Current hypertension reports · 2026Review
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 evaluate diagnostic equity, feasibility and acceptability of a remote photoplethysmography-based blood pressure screening application among adults with darker skin tones in Nigeria.
designProspective observational multisite field evaluation.
settingThree hospitals in Kebbi State, Nigeria.
participantsAdults with Fitzpatrick skin types V-VI. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility, agreement, diagnostic accuracy, acceptability, and equity relevant factors including facial tribal markings and internet bandwidth, using automated cuff measurements as the reference standard and a 140 over 90 mm Hg hypertension threshold.
resultsAmong 306 enrolled participants, 249 (81.4%) produced usable readings. Agreement was poor (systolic mean absolute error (MAE) 15.4 mm Hg, root mean square error (RMSE) 19.9; diastolic MAE 10.9 mm Hg, RMSE 13.6). Sensitivity for threshold-based systolic and diastolic blood pressure classification was very low (systolic 0.04; diastolic 0.10), with systolic sensitivity 0.00 in Fitzpatrick type VI. Specificity was high (systolic 0.99; diastolic 0.89). Lower internet bandwidth correlated with reading failure (r = -0.69 to -0.51). While 70% of patients and over 90% of staff rated the tool favourably, technical limitations created a clear perception-performance gap. In an exploratory interaction analysis, Fitzpatrick type VI was associated with higher odds of measurement failure (OR 5.08, 95% CI 2.41 to 10.72), but there was no clear evidence that facial tribal markings modified this association (interaction OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.73; p=0.564).
conclusionsRemote photoplethysmography (rPPG)-based blood pressure screening was feasible but showed inadequate performance in this darker-skinned field cohort, with critically low sensitivity. Without algorithmic recalibration for skin tone diversity and improved offline functionality, cloud-dependent rPPG systems deployed without spectrum-balanced validation may risk exacerbating diagnostic inequities in similar settings.
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.