ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Wearable, cuffless, and portable devices for blood pressure monitoring (2015-2025): a scoping review of technologies, calibration, clinical validation, and regulatory frameworks.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
Background: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential for diagnosing and controlling hypertension. Between 2015 and 2025, wearable devices and portable cuffless platforms emerged that estimate BP without a conventional brachial cuff; their evaluation is complicated by technological heterogeneity, calibration, sensitivity to dynamic conditions, and recent device-specific standards. Objective: To map the evidence published between 2015 and 2025 on wearable and portable cuffless devices for BP measurement or estimation, describing form factors, technologies, calibration/recalibration, validation, populations, settings, and standards or regulatory frameworks. Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR and the Joanna Briggs Institute, using the PCC framework. Sources were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, supplemented by device-directed searches and citation chasing. Extraction captured population, device, technology, setting, calibration, standard/protocol, comparator, metrics, limitations, conflicts, and funding. Results: Sixty-three sources were included: 7 standards/consensus/regulatory documents, 1 case study, 6 reviews, and 49 primary studies. Primary evidence covered watches with miniaturized cuffs, wearable or portable cuffless devices, and rings/finger devices. Oscillometric wrist watches were methodologically closer to conventional automated monitors, although limited by positioning requirements, reading errors, and scarce ambulatory evidence. Cuffless devices relied on PPG/PWA, PTT/PAT, tonometry, or multimodal approaches, with calibration/recalibration and proprietary algorithms. Critical gaps persisted in post-calibration stability, dynamic conditions, sleep, treatment, arrhythmias, and special populations. Conclusions: The 2015-2025 ecosystem shows rapid progress and a transition toward cuffless-specific validation. However, clinical utility depends on intended use, population, calibration/recalibration, and setting. Performance should not be extrapolated across technologies, populations, or contexts.
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.