Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Corney, Raphaela

  • Google
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2024Accuracy of methods to estimate central aortic SBP via upper arm cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis1citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Côté, Nadège
1 / 1 shared
Agharazii, Mohsen
1 / 1 shared
Picone, Dean
1 / 2 shared
Sharman, James E.
1 / 1 shared
Goupil, Rémi
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2024

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Côté, Nadège
  • Agharazii, Mohsen
  • Picone, Dean
  • Sharman, James E.
  • Goupil, Rémi
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Accuracy of methods to estimate central aortic SBP via upper arm cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Corney, Raphaela
  • Côté, Nadège
  • Agharazii, Mohsen
  • Picone, Dean
  • Sharman, James E.
  • Goupil, Rémi
Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives:</jats:title><jats:p>Central aortic BP may predict cardiovascular outcomes better than upper arm brachial BP. In recent years, technology has enabled central BP estimation by recording a peripheral BP waveform from a standard upper arm cuff. The accuracy of these devices is not well documented, and this study aimed to address this issue.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p>This study was a systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, of observational studies published between 2008 and 2023 that reported accuracy testing of cuff-based central BP devices, compared with reference invasive aortic BP. The primary analysis was stratified according to each commercially available device. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models based on mean differences and standard errors.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p>Six thousand four hundred and fifteen studies were screened, and 27 studies met inclusion criteria (plus one unpublished study). This generated data for seven devices that are commercially available, which were tested among 2125 adult participants. There was very high heterogeneity when all devices were pooled (<jats:italic toggle="yes">I</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 97.5%), and, when stratified by device, the accuracy of estimated central BP was highly device-dependent (range of accuracy across different devices −12.4 mmHg (−16.3 to −8.5) to 3.2 mmHg (0.2–6.1). Two of the seven commercially available devices had not undergone external validation testing.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p>The accuracy of commercially available cuff-based central BP devices is highly device-specific and not all are accurate for the estimation of central SBP. These findings have major implications for the appropriate interpretation of studies that use cuff-based estimated central BP.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • inclusion
  • random
  • size-exclusion chromatography