Key result
Only 16.7% of 137 oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices available for online sale were validated, with most ads containing cheaper, non-validated devices.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to characterize oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices sold online and determine which models had undergone validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=137)
Most oscillometric blood pressure devices sold online lack validation studies, and some falsely claim validation, posing risks for inaccurate home blood pressure monitoring.
Many online oscillometric devices lack validation; leaves open their accuracy for clinical BP monitoring and needs regulatory study.
OBJECTIVES: to characterize oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices for sale in the virtual market and identify which ones have undergone a validation study. METHODS: this was a cross sectional study. The search for devices for sale was conducted on websites, and the sample was composed of 137 devices obtained from 644 ads. We conducted a bibliographic survey in five databases and web pages enlisting devices submitted for validation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to check data distribution, followed by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for comparisons, using the SAS 9.4 program. RESULTS: only 16.7% of the devices were validated. The home devices ranged from USD 10.57 to USD 275.67. Only 102 ads informed the cuff size, with different nomenclatures. CONCLUSIONS: most ads contained non-validated devices, which were cheaper. We identified some ads falsely informing validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vigato et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Blood pressure measurement devices (n=137). Oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices available for online sale was evaluated on Validation status of devices. Only 16.7% of 137 oscillometric blood pressure measurement devices available for online sale were validated, with most ads containing cheaper, non-validated devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: