ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2026
Implementation of the first practical automatic micropulse blood pressure measurement device using the published revolutionary Newcastle technique.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
True accuracy for blood pressure measurement devices is required, but current techniques only estimate, deriving measurements from various private sets of clinical measurements. We previously reported a new technique that detects micropulse arterial opening, present only for beats between systole and diastole, enabling direct determination of systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP & DBP). We have now developed a first automated device using our technique and have compared its accuracy with current gold standard auscultatory measurements in 32 subjects. The differences between our novel device and simultaneous auscultatory measurements were for SBP -2.5 ± 3.1 mmHg, and for DBP -1.0 ± 1.2 mmHg (mean ± standard deviation SD). Results were well within the clinical international standard's limits of 5 ± 8 mmHg.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862539What 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.