Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31146792›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2019

Automated continuous noninvasive ward monitoring: future directions and challenges.

Ashish K Khanna, Phillip Hoppe, Bernd Saugel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Noncontact Sensors for Vital Signs Measurement: A Narrative Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ashish K KhannaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Section on Critical Care Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Phillip HoppeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Center of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Bernd SaugelOutcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH, USA. bernd.saugel@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6619-0722

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated continuous noninvasive ward monitoring may enable subtle changes in vital signs to be recognized. There is already some evidence that automated ward monitoring can improve patient outcome. Before automated continuous noninvasive ward monitoring can be implemented in clinical routine, several challenges and problems need to be considered and resolved; these include the meticulous validation of the monitoring systems with regard to their measurement performance, minimization of artifacts and false alarms, integration and combined analysis of massive amounts of data including various vital signs, and technical problems regarding the connectivity of the systems.

Indexed as

Delayed DiagnosisElectronic Data ProcessingHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicPatients' RoomsArtifactsBlood pressureFalse alarmsHemodynamic monitoringHypotensionHypoxemiaNormal wardPeripheral oxygen saturationPostoperative complicationsRemote monitoring

Identifiers

PMID31146792
PMCPMC6543687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.