↓ Skip to main content

Techniques for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Arterial Blood Pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Techniques for Non-Invasive Monitoring of Arterial Blood Pressure
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00231
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnes S. Meidert, Bernd Saugel

Abstract

Since both, hypotension and hypertension, can potentially impair the function of vital organs such as heart, brain, or kidneys, monitoring of arterial blood pressure (BP) is a mainstay of hemodynamic monitoring in acutely or critically ill patients. Arterial BP can either be obtained invasively via an arterial catheter or non-invasively. Non-invasive BP measurement provides either intermittent or continuous readings. Most commonly, an occluding upper arm cuff is used for intermittent non-invasive monitoring. BP values are then obtained either manually (by auscultation of Korotkoff sounds or palpation) or automatically (e.g., by oscillometry). For continuous non-invasive BP monitoring, the volume clamp method or arterial applanation tonometry can be used. Both techniques enable the arterial waveform and BP values to be obtained continuously. This article describes the different techniques for non-invasive BP measurement, their advantages and limitations, and their clinical applicability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 286 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 12%
Student > Master 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 8%
Researcher 22 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 120 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 55 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 47 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 125 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 March 2022.
All research outputs
#5,855,931
of 23,845,863 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,343
of 6,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,319
of 446,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#25
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,845,863 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
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 446,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.