Table 1 A comparison between different wearable blood pressure estimation studies and devices
From: The use of photoplethysmography for assessing hypertension
Year | Author | Wearable type | Sensors | Transmission mode | # Subjects | f | r (f,SBP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Redha et al.56 | Wristband | PPG | N/R | n1 = 106 | Feature set | 0.69 |
2017 | Holz et al.53 | Eyeglass frame and finger probe | PPG | N/R | n1 = 4 | PTT | 0.64–0.84 |
2017 | Zhang et al.43 | Armband | ECG and PPG | USB cable | n1 = 10 | PAT | N/R |
2016 | Plante et al.50 | Mobile phone (camera + microphone) | Heart sound and PPG | N/R | n1 = 85 | VTT | ≈0.4 |
2016 | Seeberg et al.44 | Chest belt | ECG and PPG | Bluetooth | n1 = 16 | PTT | −0.56 |
2016 | Griggs et al.42 | Bicep- and wrist-worn device | ECG and PPG | Radio frequency | n1 = 8 | PAT | −0.7 |
2016 | Zheng et al.17 | Armband | ECG and PPG | Bluetooth | n1 = 9, n2 = 15 | PAT | N/R |
2015 | Munnoch and Jiang79 | Handheld | ECG and PPG | Bluetooth | n1 = 2 | PAT | N/R |
2014 | Jung et al.39 | Finger probe and chest pad | ECG and PPG | Bluetooth | N/R | PAT | N/R |
2014 | Thomas et al.80 | Wrist watch | ECG and PPG | Bluetooth | N/R | PAT | −0.55 |
2012 | Miao et al.81 | Portable device | ECG and PPG | Bluetooth | N/R | N/R | N/R |
2009 | Guo et al.40 | Wrist watch and finger probe | ECG and PPG | ZigBee | N/R | PAT | N/R |
2008 | Pandian et al.45 | Vest-worn device | ECG and PPG | Radio frequency | n1 = 25 | PAT | N/R |
