Wearable, cuffless, and portable devices for blood pressure monitoring (2015–2025): a scoping review of technologies, calibration, clinical validation, and regulatory frameworks
Aug 2026· Frontiers in Digital Health· Vol 8· 0 citations· 78 references
Medicine
TL;DR
The 2015–2025 ecosystem shows rapid progress and a transition toward cuffless-specific validation, however, clinical utility depends on intended use, population, calibration/recalibration, and setting, and performance should not be extrapolated across technologies, populations, or contexts.
Abstract
Background Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential for diagnosing and controlling hypertension. Between 2015 and 2025, wearable devices and portable cuffless platforms emerged that estimate BP without a conventional brachial cuff; their evaluation is complicated by technological heterogeneity, calibration, sensitivity to dynamic conditions, and recent device-specific standards. Objective To map the evidence published between 2015 and 2025 on wearable and portable cuffless devices for BP measurement or estimation, describing form factors, technologies, calibration/recalibration, validation, populations, settings, and standards or regulatory frameworks. Methods A scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR and the Joanna Briggs Institute, using the PCC framework. Sources were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, supplemented by device-directed searches and citation chasing. Extraction captured population, device, technology, setting, calibration, standard/protocol, comparator, metrics, limitations, conflicts, and funding. Results Sixty-three sources were included: 7 standards/consensus/regulatory documents, 1 case study, 6 reviews, and 49 primary studies. Primary evidence covered watches with miniaturized cuffs, wearable or portable cuffless devices, and rings/finger devices. Oscillometric wrist watches were methodologically closer to conventional automated monitors, although limited by positioning requirements, reading errors, and scarce ambulatory evidence. Cuffless devices relied on PPG/PWA, PTT/PAT, tonometry, or multimodal approaches, with calibration/recalibration and proprietary algorithms. Critical gaps persisted in post-calibration stability, dynamic conditions, sleep, treatment, arrhythmias, and special populations. Conclusions The 2015–2025 ecosystem shows rapid progress and a transition toward cuffless-specific validation. However, clinical utility depends on intended use, population, calibration/recalibration, and setting. Performance should not be extrapolated across technologies, populations, or contexts.
Wearable wristwatch-type cuff oscillometric blood pressure (BP) monitors represent a new category of BP devices and are the first wearable monitors to use established cuff-oscillometric BP measurement technology. This consensus statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on BP Monitoring reviews the published evidence on their design, accuracy, validation, clinical application, and remaining research questions. Of 281 articles identified through a systematic PubMed search, 26 were relevant. Several devices are currently available; however, only two have published validation studies performed according to established standards (Omron HeartGuide and Huawei Watch D/D2). Static validation studies generally showed acceptable accuracy, whereas data on 24-h ambulatory use, in special populations, and clinical applications remain limited. Potential advantages include self-initiated measurement at home, at work, and in other settings and conditions; more convenient and repeatable 24-h ambulatory monitoring; more convenient and accurate assessment of asleep BP; capture of stress-related and other BP-related episodes. However, proper wrist position, user adherence, ambulatory performance, and clinical applications require further investigation. More research is needed to establish the accuracy and clinical utility of these novel devices and their role in improving the diagnosis and management of hypertension.
George S. Stergiou, A. Menti, Kei Asayama et al.· Journal of Hypertension· 0 citations
There is an urgent need for more automated BP devices to be validated in children as there is a severe shortage of validated automated BP device models for children.
George S. Stergiou, A. Menti, P. Palatini et al.· HYPERTENSION· 0 citations
The Arm-Type Fully Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor (model: DBP-62F4B-P) meets the accuracy and consistency requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO standard for SBP and DBP measurement in adolescents and adults with arm circumference 22.0-42.0 cm and is suitable for home use based on its design features and validation performance.
This represents the first evaluation of a Device Type 3 cuffless blood pressure algorithm (automated, wearable, demographic-calibrated, not at heart level) meeting ESH awake/asleep test criteria, suggesting Alysis-001's potential as a clinically viable alternative for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients.
Introduction and purpose: Wearable technologies have become widely adopted tools for monitoring physical activity and optimizing athletic training, yet comprehensive evaluations of their accuracy and effectiveness remain fragmented. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on wearable technology in physical activity monitoring and sport-specific training.
Materials and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and CENTRAL was conducted for studies published between 2015 and 2025, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and primary validation studies were synthesized.
Brief description of the state of knowledge: Step counting reached acceptable accuracy in leading consumer devices (mean absolute percentage error below 25%), and optical heart rate sensors performed well at rest and moderate intensity (MAPE below 10%). Energy expenditure estimation remained inaccurate across all devices (MAPE exceeding 30%). An umbrella review of 39 systematic reviews found that 79% of physical activity analyses favored wearable interventions. A meta-analysis of 23 trials involving 4,566 older adults reported significant improvements in daily step counts and physical activity time, whereas no significant effects were found in youth populations.
Summary: Wearable devices offer acceptable accuracy for step counting and heart rate but not energy expenditure. Standardized validation protocols, algorithmic transparency, and long-term effectiveness studies are needed to maximize clinical and sporting utility.
D. Grzybowska, Weronika Grzyb, Kamil Idzik et al.· Quality in Sport· 0 citations
Background: Hypertension remains poorly controlled worldwide despite the availability of effective treatment. Wearable devices may support self-management by combining blood pressure monitoring, physical activity feedback, reminders, and digital communication outside clinic visits.
Objective: This review evaluates whether wearable and connected devices improve hypertension self-management, which components appear clinically useful, and why long-term adoption often fails.
Materials and Methods: A structured narrative review was conducted using English-language publications available through June 2026. Thirty sources were included, comprising randomized trials, systematic reviews, professional statements, validation studies, and qualitative research.
Results: Wearable or connected monitoring appears most useful when it is embedded in a care pathway that includes reliable measurement, feedback, education, medication titration, or professional support. Activity tracking or self-measurement alone produces small, inconsistent, or absent blood pressure effects. Cuffless blood pressure devices may reduce measurement burden and capture patterns across daily life, but calibration drift, position effects, proprietary algorithms, and incomplete validation currently limit their use for diagnosis or treatment decisions. Sustained engagement depends on usability, perceived value, trust, tailored feedback, social support, and integration with clinical workflows.
Conclusions: Wearables should be treated as components of an organized self-management system rather than stand-alone therapies. Future implementation should prioritize validated measurement, low-burden design, human support, interoperability, and equity-sensitive evaluation over device novelty.
Radosław Sciepuro, Marta Czarnowska, Nina Czarnowska· International Journal of Inn...· 0 citations