A systematic review of blood pressure monitor validation studies

Background Good hypertension care requires accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement with BP monitors validated as accurate. The British and Irish Hypertension Society maintains a peer-reviewed list of validated monitors, independent of commercial interests. The list informs National Institute for Health and Care Excellence hypertension guidance and NHS monitor procurement. An updated universal standard protocol for BP device validation was introduced in 2018. Aim Review the literature to establish which validation protocols are now being used; has this changed since publication of the universal protocol, and what proportion of recently published BP monitor validations fully meet protocol validation criteria? Method Systematic review searches of Medline and Embase from 2018 to September 2025 identified BP monitor validation studies. Citations and full texts were screened independently by two authors. Included studies were reviewed independently by two authors against checklists of protocol criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and/or arbitration by lead authors. Results Seven reviewers screened 1780 unique citations, reviewing 216 full texts to date. Nine reviewers have double-extracted data from 157 publications reporting 197 device validation studies. Overall, 104 (63%) used universal protocols. While 184 (93%) validations were reported as successful by authors, only 146 (74%) fulfilled all protocol criteria on review. Thus, we considered 51 (26%) published successful validations inadequate, due to non-fulfilment of key validation criteria and/or violations of BP measurement protocols such as incomplete BP range coverage. Conclusion This review highlights inadequacies in current journal peer-review processes, justifying our approach to provide impartial guidance for health professionals, purchasers, and the public.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2026-05-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp26x745497
Primary Topic
Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A systematic review of blood pressure monitor validation studies

Rosina Cross, James Curneen, Christopher Clark, Barry McDonnell et al.
British Journal of General Practice
Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
article

A systematic review of blood pressure monitor validation studies

Rosina Cross, James Curneen, Christopher Clark, Barry McDonnell, Phil Chowienczyk, Ian James Porter, Sinead McDonagh, Neil Chapman, Peter Lacy, Phillip Lewis, Theresa Santosh, Nia Roberts, Hermione Mcleish, Richard McManus
article en

Abstract

Background Good hypertension care requires accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement with BP monitors validated as accurate. The British and Irish Hypertension Society maintains a peer-reviewed list of validated monitors, independent of commercial interests. The list informs National Institute for Health and Care Excellence hypertension guidance and NHS monitor procurement. An updated universal standard protocol for BP device validation was introduced in 2018. Aim Review the literature to establish which validation protocols are now being used; has this changed since publication of the universal protocol, and what proportion of recently published BP monitor validations fully meet protocol validation criteria? Method Systematic review searches of Medline and Embase from 2018 to September 2025 identified BP monitor validation studies. Citations and full texts were screened independently by two authors. Included studies were reviewed independently by two authors against checklists of protocol criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and/or arbitration by lead authors. Results Seven reviewers screened 1780 unique citations, reviewing 216 full texts to date. Nine reviewers have double-extracted data from 157 publications reporting 197 device validation studies. Overall, 104 (63%) used universal protocols. While 184 (93%) validations were reported as successful by authors, only 146 (74%) fulfilled all protocol criteria on review. Thus, we considered 51 (26%) published successful validations inadequate, due to non-fulfilment of key validation criteria and/or violations of BP measurement protocols such as incomplete BP range coverage. Conclusion This review highlights inadequacies in current journal peer-review processes, justifying our approach to provide impartial guidance for health professionals, purchasers, and the public.

British Journal of General PracticeVol. 76(suppl 1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.