Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31722079›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2020

Insights into postoperative respiration by using continuous wireless monitoring of respiratory rate on the postoperative ward: a cohort study.

Linda M Posthuma, Maarten J Visscher, Philipp B Lirk, Els J M Nieveen van Dijkum, Markus W Hollmann, Benedikt Preckel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Linda M PosthumaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre AMC, Meibergdreef 9, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maarten J VisscherDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre AMC, Meibergdreef 9, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philipp B LirkDepartment of Anesthesiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Els J M Nieveen van DijkumDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre AMC, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Markus W HollmannDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre AMC, Meibergdreef 9, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Benedikt PreckelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre AMC, Meibergdreef 9, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.preckel@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4412-9183
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Change of respiratory rate (RespR) is the most powerful predictor of clinical deterioration. Brady- (RespR ≤ 8) and tachypnea (RespR ≥ 31) are associated with serious adverse events. Simultaneously, RespR is the least accurately measured vital parameter. We investigated the feasibility of continuously measuring RespR on the ward using wireless monitoring equipment, without impeding mobilization. Continuous monitoring of vital parameters using a wireless SensiumVitals® patch was installed and RespR was measured every 2 mins. We defined feasibility of adequate RespR monitoring if the system reports valid RespR measurements in at least 50% of time-points in more than 80% of patients during day- and night-time, respectively. Data from 119 patients were analysed. The patch detected in 171,151 of 227,587 measurements valid data for RespR (75.2%). During postoperative day and night four, the system still registered 68% and 78% valid measurements, respectively. 88% of the patients had more than 67% of valid RespR measurements. The RespR's most frequently measured were 13-15; median RespR was 15 (mean 16, 25th- and 75th percentile 13 and 19). No serious complications or side effects were observed. We successfully measured electronically RespR on a surgical ward in postoperative patients continuously for up to 4 days post-operatively using a wireless monitoring system. While previous studies mentioned a digit preference of 18-22 for RespR, the most frequently measured RespR were 13-16. However, in the present study we did not validate the measurements against a reference method. Rather, we attempted to demonstrate the feasibility of achieving continuous wireless measurement in patients on surgical postoperative wards. As the technology used is based on impedance pneumography, obstructive apnoea might have been missed, namely in those patients receiving opioids post-operatively.

Indexed as

Respiratory RateVital SignsCohort StudiesHospitalsHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicMonitoringPatient safetyRespiratory rateVital parameterWireless monitoring

Identifiers

PMID31722079
PMCPMC7548277
OpenAlexW2985107422

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.