↓ Skip to main content

Clinical evaluation of continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring: Accuracy and tracking capabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring, July 1995
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
27 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Clinical evaluation of continuous noninvasive blood pressure monitoring: Accuracy and tracking capabilities
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring, July 1995
DOI 10.1007/bf01617519
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher C. Young, Jonathan B. Mark, William White, Ashley DeBree, Jeffery S. Vender, Andrew Fleming

Abstract

A continuous, noninvasive device for blood pressure measurement using pulse transit time has been recently introduced. We compared blood pressure measurement determined using this device with simultaneous invasive blood pressure measurements in 35 patients undergoing general endotracheal anesthesia. Data were analyzed for accuracy and tracking ability of the noninvasive technique, and for frequency of unavailable pressure measurements by each method. A total of 25,133 measurements of systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) by each method were collected for comparison from 35 patients. Accuracy was expressed by reporting mean bias (invasive pressure minus noninvasive pressure) and limits of agreement between the two measurements. After correction for the offset found when measuring invasive and oscillometric methods of arterial pressure measurement, the mean biases for systolic, diastolic, and mean pressures by the pulse wave method were -0.37 mm Hg, -0.01 mm Hg, and -0.05 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.001). The limits of agreement were: -29.0 to 28.2 mm Hg, -14.9 to 14.8 mm Hg, and -19.1 to 19.0 mm Hg, respectively (95% confidence intervals). When blood pressure measured invasively changed over time by more than 10 mm Hg, the noninvasive technique accurately tracked the direction of change 67% of the time. During the entire study, 3.2% of the invasive measurements were unavailable and 12.9% of the noninvasive measurements were unavailable. The continuous noninvasive monitoring technique is not of sufficient accuracy to replace direct invasive measurement of arterial blood pressure, owing to relatively wide limits of agreement between the two methods.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 7 15%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 22%
Computer Science 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,473,822
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring
#15
of 74 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,250
of 24,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 24,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.