ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2026
The Post-Marketing Real-World Outpatient Clinical Validation of Electronic Blood Pressure Monitors.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Post-Marketing Real-World Outpatient Clinical Validation of Electronic Blood Pressure Monitors.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the accuracy of a variety of home upper-arm oscillometric blood pressure monitors (BPMs) from 448 participants against the FDA-certified XYZ110 auscultatory device using simultaneous measurements. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the key findings of the study. Device performance was evaluated referencing international standards (ISO 81060-2:2013), where a mean absolute difference of ≤5 mmHg was defined as "Accurate." In addition, survey questionnaires completed by a subset of participants were analyzed to provide supplementary insights. A total of 448 consecutive outpatient clinical patients attending a routine clinical visit with their BPMs (male 215 and female 233) were eligible to participate in this study. The overall mean age of the participants was 62.35±12.59 years. Most of the BPMs included in this study were of the Omron brand (79.69%, n = 357), followed by Yuwell (5.8%, n = 26) and others. 76.32% of systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements and 69.89% of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measurements from BPMs exhibited differences of ≤5 mmHg compared to the reference calibrator. 70.89% (n = 318) were accurate in measuring SBP, and 60.27% (n = 270) were accurate in measuring DBP. Our study revealed that over 20% of BPMs exhibited discrepancies of more than 5 mmHg compared to a reference calibrator. Overall, the Omron U30, HEM-7211, and U10 models demonstrated relatively higher accuracy in blood pressure measurements. Regular patient to patient validation of BPMs is crucial to ensure accurate measurements for daily use.
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.