ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Agreement between upper-arm and wrist cuff occlusion for the assessment of vascular reactivity by digital thermal monitoring.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital Thermal Monitoring (DTM) is an automated method for assessing vascular reactivity using the vascular reactivity index (VRI), a temperature-derived surrogate marker associated with endothelial function. Standard DTM requires five minutes of supra-systolic upper-arm cuff occlusion, which may cause discomfort and limit feasibility in some individuals. Whether wrist cuff occlusion provides comparable VRI measurements remains unknown. Methods: In this method-comparison study, 48 healthy adults underwent DTM assessment using both upper-arm and wrist cuff occlusion in randomized order during the same visit. Agreement between the two occlusion sites for VRI, pulse rate (PR), and blood pressure (BP) was evaluated using paired comparisons and agreement analyses. Results: Mean VRI was 1.70 ± 0.33 with upper-arm cuff occlusion and 1.76 ± 0.34 with wrist cuff occlusion, with no significant difference between sites (mean difference 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.15; p=0.25) and no significant proportional bias. Agreement for VRI was moderate (ICC = 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.70). In contrast, wrist measurements overestimated systolic BP by 10.5 mmHg (95% CI 7.3-13.7; p<0.001) and diastolic BP by 10 mmHg (95% CI 7.1-12.9; p<0.001), with poor agreement (ICC = 0.29, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.56 and ICC = 0.18, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.43, respectively). Conclusions: Wrist cuff occlusion provides similar mean VRI values to upper-arm occlusion but demonstrates only moderate agreement at the individual level. Further studies with larger and more diverse populations, including repeated measurements, are required assessment before wrist and upper-arm cuff occlusion can be considered interchangeable for individual assessment.
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.