OBJECTIVE: To find out the normative value of deep neck flexor muscles strength using pressure biofeedback unit and sphygmomanometer.
METHODS: The healthy individuals both male and female aged between 18 and 25 years were recruited by stratified random sampling method from a tertiary hospital. The procedure is performed with the patient in supine lying with the neck in a neutral position. To check strength, pressure biofeedback unit and sphygmomanometer were placed under occiput and ask the individual to do the movement is genteelly and slowly as a head nodding action (chin tuck). The performance was scored via the pressure level that patient achieves 3 repetitions for 10 s hold and interval timing for 10 s. And the pressure biofeedback unit and sphygmomanometer inflated with 40 mmHg and took three reading respectively.
RESULTS: Our result shows, in decreased of deep neck cervical flexor muscle Strength with age group 21 (20-22) in normal adult and underweight with age group 21 (19-23) and with BMI 21 (20.1-22.4) and 16.6 (16.1-17.6) respectively. In our study, the deep neck flexor strength of overweight adults with age group 22 (21-23) and with BMI 27.8 (25.9-29.4) is stronger is than the normal and underweight adults.
CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that the maximal Deep neck cervical flexor strength of overweight Adults is stronger than normal and underweight Adults. The difference is maintained in all age groups. The maximal Deep neck cervical flexor strength, for flexion is developed at neutral position of neck.

UNASSIGNED: The objective was to utilize a smartwatch sphygmomanometer to predict new-onset hypertension within a short-term follow-up among individuals with high-normal blood pressure (HNBP).
UNASSIGNED: This study consisted of 3180 participants in the training set and 1000 participants in the validation set. Participants underwent both ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) using a smartwatch sphygmomanometer. Multivariable Cox regressions were used to analyze cumulative events. A nomogram was constructed to predict new-onset hypertension. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the C-index and calibration curve, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 3180 individuals with HNBP in the training set, 693 (21.8%) developed new-onset hypertension within a 6-month period. The nomogram for predicting new-onset hypertension had a C-index of 0.854 (95% CI, 0.843-0.867). The calibration curve demonstrated good agreement between the nomogram\'s predicted probabilities and actual observations for short-term new-onset hypertension. In the validate dataset, during the 6-month follow-up, the nomogram had a good C-index of 0.917 (95% CI, 0.904-0.930) and a good calibration curve. As the score increased, the risk of new-onset hypertension significantly increased, with an HR of 8.415 (95% CI: 5.153-13.744, p = .000) for the middle-score vs. low-score groups and 86.824 (95% CI: 55.071-136.885, p = .000) for the high-score vs. low-score group.
UNASSIGNED: This study provides evidence for the use of smartwatch sphygmomanometer to monitor blood pressure in individuals at high risk of developing new-onset hypertension in the near future.
UNASSIGNED: ChiCTR2200057354.

The VALID BP project was initiated to increase the availability of validated blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs). The goal is to eliminate non validated BPMDs and minimise over- and underdiagnosis of hypertension caused by inaccurate readings. This study was undertaken to assess the potential return on investment in the VALID BP project. The Framework to Assess the Impact of Translational Health Research was applied to the VALID BP project. This paper focuses on the implementation of the cost benefit analysis aspect of this framework to monetise past research investment and model future research costs, implementation costs, and benefits. Analysis was based on reasoned assumptions about potential impacts from availability and use of validated BPMDs (assuming an end goal of 100% validated BPMDs available in Australia by 2028) and improved skills leading to more accurate BP measurement. After 5 years, with 20% attribution of benefits, there is a potential $1.14-$1.30 return for every dollar spent if the proportion of validated BPMDs and staff trained in proper BP measurement technique increased from 20% to 60%. After eight years (2020-2028) and assuming universal validation and training coverage, the returns would be between $2.70 and $3.20 per dollar spent (not including cost of side effects of unnecessary medication or downstream patient impacts from unmanaged hypertension). This modelled economic analysis indicates there will be positive downstream economic benefits if the availability of validated BPMDs is increased. The findings support ongoing efforts toward a universal regulatory framework for BPMDs and can be considered within more detailed future economic analyses.

Blood pressure monitoring is of paramount importance in the assessment of a human\'s cardiovascular health. The state-of-the-art method remains the usage of an upper-arm cuff sphygmomanometer. However, this device suffers from severe limitations-it only provides a static blood pressure value pair, is incapable of capturing blood pressure variations over time, is inaccurate, and causes discomfort upon use. This work presents a radar-based approach that utilizes the movement of the skin due to artery pulsation to extract pressure waves. From those waves, a set of 21 features was collected and used-together with the calibration parameters of age, gender, height, and weight-as input for a neural network-based regression model. After collecting data from 55 subjects from radar and a blood pressure reference device, we trained 126 networks to analyze the developed approach\'s predictive power. As a result, a very shallow network with just two hidden layers produced a systolic error of 9.2±8.3 mmHg (mean error ± standard deviation) and a diastolic error of 7.7±5.7 mmHg. While the trained model did not reach the requirements of the AAMI and BHS blood pressure measuring standards, optimizing network performance was not the goal of the proposed work. Still, the approach has displayed great potential in capturing blood pressure variation with the proposed features. The presented approach therefore shows great potential to be incorporated into wearable devices for continuous blood pressure monitoring for home use or screening applications, after improving this approach even further.

Although noise is known to negatively affect blood pressure (BP) measurements, its impact on different BP measurement methods remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the agreement of oscillometric and auscultatory BP measurement methods under in-ambulance noise levels.
This method-comparison study was conducted on 50 healthy volunteers in a tertiary emergency department (ED). Participants were divided into two groups of 25, and BP was measured using auscultatory and oscillometric methods in noisy and ambient environments by 2 emergency medicine technicians (EMT). The primary object of the study was to compare the agreement of auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometers and automated auscillometric BP measurements in ambient and noisy environments.
We examined the agreement between auscultative and oscillometric measurements of BP conducted in an ambient environment (46.75 [IQR (41.2--55.18)] dB) and found that both systolic and diastolic BP were within the level of agreement (LoA) established before the study (systolic BP [-13.96 to 8.48 mmHG], diastolic BP [-7.44 to 8.08 mmHg]); whereas, in noisy environment (92.35 [IQR 88-96.55] dB) both systolic and diastolic BP were outside the range of LoA (systolic BP [-37.77 to 9.94 mmHg], diastolic BP [-21.73 to 16.37 mmHg]). Additionally, we found that in ambient environments, concordance correlation coefficients were higher than in noisy environments (0.943 [0.906-0.966], 0.957 [0.93-0.974]; 0.574 [0.419-0.697], 0.544 [0.326-0.707]; systolic and diastolic BP, respectively).
The results of this study demonstrate that noise significantly affects the agreement between oscillometric and auscultatory blood pressure measurement methods.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical evaluation and user experience of the Cloud DX connected HealthKit Pulsewave wrist cuff blood pressure monitor (CDXP) for home blood pressure monitoring during pregnancy.
METHODS: In the first phase, an adjusted version of the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010 was used to compare the CDXP and Omron M6 Comfort to the gold standard, the aneroid manometer, In the second phase, we evaluated the performance of home blood pressure measurement (HMBPM) by the CDXP to standard hospital blood pressure measurement with the Welch Allyn 53000P. Additionally, patients filled out a questionnaire regarding user experience.
RESULTS: In 34 pregnant patients the blood pressure measured by the CDXP did not differ from the aneroid manometer, while the Omron M6 Comfort measured the systolic blood pressure slightly higher (1.5 ± 5.8 mmHg (p = 0.04)) and diastolic blood pressure slightly lower (-2.8 ± 5.8 mmHg (p < 0.01)) as compared to the aneroid manometer. In 32 patients the systolic blood pressure of home blood pressure measurement with the CDXP was significantly lower than the single standard hospital measurements. The mean system usability scaled score was high (85%). Of all patients, 97% reported they liked the idea of home monitoring and would like to use it in the future.
CONCLUSIONS: The CDXP measured blood pressure correctly, even slightly better than the Omron M6 Comfort and gives a better representation of the blood pressure during the day at home than a single hospital measurement. Pregnant patients are positive about HMBPM and find the CDXP easy to use.

Various home blood pressure monitors (HBPMs) are available to the public for purchase but only some are validated against standardised protocols. This study aimed to assess whether HBPMs owned by participants taking part in a clinical trial were validated models. The TIME study is a decentralised randomised trial investigating the effect of antihypertensive medication dosing time on cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension. No HBPMs were provided to participants in this trial but patients were asked to report if they already owned one. We identified the model of HBPM reported by participants, then cross-referenced this against lists of validated HBPMs produced by dabl Educational Trust and the British and Irish Hypertension Society (BIHS). Of 21,104 participants, 10,464 (49.6%) reported their model of HBPM. 7464 (71.3%) of these participants owned a monitor that could be identified from the participants\' entry. Of these, 6066 (81.3%) participants owned a monitor listed as validated by either dabl (n = 5903) or BIHS (n = 5491). Some were listed as validated by both. 1398 (18.7%) participants owned an identifiable HBPM that lacked clear evidence of validation. 6963 (93.3%) participants owned an upper arm HBPM and 501 (6.7%) owned a wrist HBPM. Validated HBPMs had a higher median online retail price of £45.00 compared to £20.00 for HBPMs lacking clear evidence of validation. A significant number of participants own HBPMs lacking evidence of validation.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends the use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) as part of screening and diagnosis of hypertension. The optimal ABPM device for population-based surveys is unknown.
We compared the proportion of valid blood pressure (BP) readings, mean awake and asleep BP readings, differences between awake ABPM readings and initial standardized BP readings, and sleep experience among three ABPM devices. We randomized a convenience sample of 365 adults to 1 of 3 ABPM devices: Welch Allyn Mobil-O-Graph (WA), Sun Tech Classic Oscar2 (STO) and Spacelabs 90227 (SL). Participants completed sleep quality questionnaires on the nights before and during ABPM testing.
The proportions of valid BP readings were not different among the 3 devices (P > 0.45). Mean awake and asleep systolic BP were significantly higher for STO device (WA vs. STO vs. SL: 126.65, 138.09, 127.44 mm Hg; 114.34, 120.34, 113.13 mm Hg; P < 0.0001 for both). The difference between the initial average standardized mercury systolic BP readings and the ABPM mean awake systolic BP was larger for STO device (WA vs. STO. vs. SL: -5.26, -16.24, -5.36 mm Hg; P < 0.0001); diastolic BP mean differences were ~ -6 mm Hg for all 3 devices (P = 0.6). Approximately 55% of participants reported that the devices interfered with sleep; however, there were no sleep differences across the devices (P > 0.4 for all).
Most of the participants met the threshold of 70% valid readings over 24 hours. Sleep disturbance was common but did not interfere with completion of measurement in most of the participants.

Home blood-pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended in guidelines and is increasingly popular with patients and health professionals, but the accuracy of patients\' own monitors in real-world use is not known.
To assess the accuracy of home BP monitors used by people with hypertension, and to investigate factors affecting accuracy.
Cross-sectional, observational study in urban and suburban settings in central England.
Patients (n = 6891) on the hypertension register at seven practices in the West Midlands, England, were surveyed to ascertain whether they owned a BP monitor and wanted it tested. Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device at 50 mmHg intervals between 0-280/300 mmHg (static pressure test); a difference from the reference monitor of +/-3 mmHg at any interval was considered a failure. Cuff performance was also assessed. Results were analysed by frequency of use, length of time in service, make and model, monitor validation status, purchase price, and any previous testing.
In total, 251 (76%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 71 to 80%) of 331 tested devices passed all tests (monitors and cuffs), and 86% (CI] = 82 to 90%) passed the static pressure test; deficiencies were, primarily, because of monitors overestimating BP. A total of 40% of testable monitors were not validated. The pass rate on the static pressure test was greater in validated monitors (96%, 95% CI = 94 to 98%) versus unvalidated monitors (64%, 95% CI = 58 to 69%), those retailing for >£10 (90%, 95% CI = 86 to 94%), those retailing for ≤£10 (66%, 95% CI = 51 to 80%), those in use for ≤4 years (95%, 95% CI = 91 to 98%), and those in use for >4 years (74%, 95% CI = 67 to 82%). All in all, 12% of cuffs failed.
Patients\' own BP monitor failure rate was similar to that demonstrated in studies performed in professional settings, although cuff failure was more frequent. Clinicians can be confident of the accuracy of patients\' own BP monitors if the devices are validated and ≤4 years old.

Numerous devices purport to measure central (aortic) blood pressure (BP) as distinct from conventional brachial BP. This validation study aimed to determine the accuracy of the Sphygmocor Xcel cuff device (AtCor Medical, CardieX, Sydney, Australia) for measuring central BP. 296 patients (mean age 61±12 years) undergoing coronary angiography had simultaneous measurement of invasive central BP and noninvasive cuff-derived central BP using the Xcel cuff device (total n=558 individual comparisons). A subsample (n=151) also had invasive brachial BP measured. Methods were undertaken according to the Artery Society recommendations, and several calibration techniques to derive central systolic BP (SBP) were examined. Minimum acceptable error was ≤5±≤8 mm Hg. Central SBP was significantly underestimated, and with wide variability, when using the default calibration of brachial-cuff SBP and diastolic BP (DBP; mean difference±SD, -7.7±11.0 mm Hg). Similar variability was observed using other calibration methods (cuff 33% form-factor mean arterial pressure and DBP, -4.4±11.5 mm Hg; cuff 40% form-factor mean arterial pressure and DBP, 4.7±11.9 mm Hg; cuff oscillometric mean arterial pressure and DBP, -18.2±12.1 mm Hg). Only calibration with invasive central integrated mean arterial pressure and DBP was within minimal acceptable error (3.3±7.5 mm Hg). The difference between brachial-cuff SBP and invasive central SBP was 3.3±10.7 mm Hg. A subsample analysis to determine the accuracy of central-to-brachial SBP amplification showed this to be overestimated by the Xcel cuff device (mean difference 4.3±9.1 mm Hg, P=0.02). Irrespective of cuff calibration technique, the Sphygmocor Xcel cuff device does not meet the Artery Society accuracy criteria for noninvasive measurement of central BP.