ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Reliability and device objectivity in oscillatory blood pressure measurement - a measurement error analysis to inform clinical decision making.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implementation of different hypertension thresholds (e.g. ESC/ESH: 140:90 or ACC/AHH: 130:80) substantially increased hypertension prevalence donation of pharmacological treatment across various populations. Under narrow margins of only 10mmHg, measurement accuracy and reliability become decisive for clinical decision-making. However, detailed information on systematic and random errors naturally occurring in clinical practice under repeated testing conditions remain widely limited.To provide practically relevant insights, 65 participants were recruited for visited the lab four times with one un-standardized arrival measurement to mimic oftentimes observed clinical real-world scenarios followed by four standardized measurements performed in adherence with current guidelines. Tests were performed with two certified blood pressure devices, each on two testing days to quantify intra- and interday, as well as interdevice measurement errors via relative reliability and systematic and random measurement errors.Insufficient pre-measurement rest periods caused clinically relevant systematic blood pressure enhancements. Within a subsequent 10-18 min rest, the blood pressure was reliably reduced with about 10 mmHg on both days and both devices. However, the Boso Medicus testing device showed consistently higher blood pressure values with 13mmHg compared to the Welch Allyn monitor.Although measurements could be replicated inter-day in both devices, substantial interdevice discrepancies and clinically relevant random errors were observed, that can cause false-positive hypertension diagnoses, especially when pre-measurement rest was insufficient. Results underscore the relevance of performing several blood pressure assessments (per day and on different days) to account for random measurement errors and reduce the risk of inappropriate clinical decision-making and unnecessary treatment escalation.
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.