Why the study?
Despite being an independent prognostic biomarker, arterial stiffness is not routinely used in clinical practice, possibly due to the plethora of available measurement methods and devices.
This review provides a concise overview and grading of methods used to measure arterial stiffness in humans, focusing on their scrutiny and purity.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports prioritizing measurement purity over practicality for arterial stiffness; leaves open outcome validation and clinical adoption.
Despite the wide recognition of larger artery stiffness as a highly clinically relevant and independent prognostic biomarker, it has yet be incorporated into routine clinical practice and to take a more prominent position in clinical guidelines. An important reason may be the plethora of methods and devices claiming to measure arterial stiffness in humans. This brief review provides a concise overview of methods in use, indicating strengths and weaknesses. We classified and graded methods, highly weighing their scrutiny and purity in quantifying arterial stiffness, rather than focusing on their ease of application or the level at which methods have demonstrated their prognostic and diagnostic potential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Segers et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: