Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40703116›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025

Validation of a popular consumer-grade cuffless blood pressure device for continuous 24 h monitoring.

Bhavini J Bhatt, Haashim Mohammad Amir, Siana Jones, Alexandra Jamieson, Nishi Chaturvedi, Alun Hughes, Michele Orini

RetractedAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Bhavini J BhattInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Haashim Mohammad AmirInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Siana JonesInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1290-1626
Alexandra JamiesonInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
Nishi ChaturvediInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6211-2775
Alun HughesInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-5271
Michele OriniInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5773-0344

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Hypertension is a leading cause of death worldwide, yet many hypertensive cases remain undiagnosed. Wearable, cuffless blood pressure (BP) monitors could be deployed at scale, but their accuracy remains undetermined. Methods and results: This study validated a popular consumer-grade wearable BP monitor (W-BPM, Aktiia), using a medical-grade ambulatory device (A-BPM, Mobil-O-Graph), for reference. Thirty-one participants (aged 19-62 years, 17 (55%) females, in office BP 121 ± 15 over 77 ± 12 mmHg) simultaneously wore both devices for 24 h. Systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured in pre-set intervals by the A-BPM and at rest by the W-BPM. Agreement was assessed using standard methods. Accuracy in identifying high BP (mean 24 h SBP/DBP > 130/80 mmHg) was assessed. Compared to A-BMP, mean SBP and DBP tended to be slightly lower during the day and not significantly different at night. Nocturnal BP dipping and BP variability were significantly underestimated by the W-BPM. Agreement between the two devices was poor to moderate (limits of agreement of about -30/+30 mmHg for SBP and -20/+15 mmHg for DBP, correlation coefficients between 0.20 and 0.42). Sensitivity and specificity for high BP detection were around 50% and 80%, respectively. Limiting the analysis to measures taken in similar conditions (within 10 min and with HR within ±10 b.p.m.) did not improve agreement. Conclusion: Low agreement suggests that the cuffless device may not be a suitable replacement for standard 24 h cuff-based ambulatory monitoring. Further data are required to assess the clinical role of cuffless BP monitors.

Indexed as

Ambulatory blood pressureBlood pressureBlood pressure variabilityHypertensionWearable cuffless devices

Identifiers

PMID40703116
PMCPMC12282388

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.