ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2023
Non-Invasive Estimation of Central Systolic Blood Pressure by Radial Tonometry: A Simplified Approach.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between invasive radial and femoral arterial pressures and carotid tonometry in ICU patients: A physiological study.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Estimation of central blood pressure waveform from femoral blood pressure waveform by blind sources separation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Commentary: Direct estimation of central aortic pressure from measured or quantified mean and diastolic brachial blood pressure: agreement with invasive records.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
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 at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backroundCentral systolic blood pressure (cSBP) provides valuable clinical and physiological information. A recent invasive study showed that cSBP can be reliably estimated from mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure. In this non-invasive study, we compared cSBP calculated using a Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation (DCBP = MBP
methodsConsecutive patients referred for cardiovascular assessment and prevention were prospectively included. Using applanation tonometry with SphygmoCor device, cSBP was estimated using an inbuilt generalized transfer function derived from radial pressure waveform, which was calibrated to oscillometric brachial SBP and DBP. The time-averaged MBP was calculated from the radial pulse waveform. The minimum acceptable error (DCBP-cSBP) was set at ≤5 (mean) and ≤8 mmHg (SD).
resultsWe included 160 patients (58 years, 54%men). The cSBP was 123.1 ± 18.3 mmHg (range 86-181 mmHg). The (DCBP-cSBP) error was -1.4 ± 4.9 mmHg. There was a linear relationship between cSBP and DCBP (R
conclusionsUsing the DCBP formula, radial tonometry allows for the robust estimation of cSBP without the need for a generalized transfer function. This finding may have implications for risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.