Key result
A novel cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using a Hall device estimated systolic and diastolic blood pressures with standard deviations of 12.1 and 5.9 mmHg, respectively, compared to standard meters.
Why the study?
Does a cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using a Hall device accurately estimate blood pressure compared to standard sphygmomanometers?
Population
13 adults (7 male, 6 female, ages early 20s to early 60s) from a university setting.
Comparison
Cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using a Hall… vs Electronic blood pressure meter and mercury…
Authors
Loading...
Should not yet change BP monitoring practice; leaves open the utility of Hall-based cuffless wearables pending validation.
Observational (n=13)
No
Does a cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using a Hall device accurately estimate blood pressure compared to standard sphygmomanometers?
Effect estimate: SD 12.1 for SBP, 5.9 for DBP
A novel cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using a Hall device showed promising accuracy for diastolic blood pressure estimation, though systolic estimation requires further refinement.
Ahn et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Blood pressure measurement (n=13). Cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using Hall device vs. Electronic or mercury liquid blood pressure meters was evaluated on Standard deviation of the error between estimated and measured blood pressure (SD 12.1 for SBP, 5.9 for DBP). A novel cuffless wrist wearable pulsimeter using a Hall device estimated systolic and diastolic blood pressures with standard deviations of 12.1 and 5.9 mmHg, respectively, compared to standard meters.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: