Reproducibility and agreement of pulse wave velocity and augmentation index over repeated assessments using two different devices in adolescents
The PulsePen had better reproducibility of PWV than the Arteriograph. Both devices had limited reliability and high variability in AIx% measurements. PWV from the PulsePen may be applicable in healthcare, while results from the Arteriograph should be interpreted with caution. Because of the poor agreement between the devices, the data from these devices should not be directly compared. These results may not be generalizable based on the modest sample size. In addition, the variability in real-world situations should not be overlooked.
Authors
- Bert Bond (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3597-8562)
- ALAN ROBERT BARKER (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8610-5417)
- Timo Nurmi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2020-7757)
- Petri Jalanko (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8758-7275)
- Eero A. Haapala (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5096-851X)
- Emilia Laitinen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1132-9730)
- Earric Lee (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3490-4262)
- Rômulo Araújo Fernandes (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4721-0836)
- Wésley [UNESP] Torres
- Ying Gao
Institutions
- University of Eastern Finland (FI)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- Montreal Heart Institute (CA)
- Center for Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences (RS)
- Hospital Regional de Presidente Prudente (BR)
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Zhejiang University (CN)
- University of Jyväskylä (FI)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging
- Published
- 2026-01-29
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.70049
- Primary Topic
- Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00
Funders
- Foundation for Cardiovascular Research
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
- Juho Vainion Säätiö
- Sydäntutkimussäätiö