Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32088910›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2021

Clinical evaluation of stretchable and wearable inkjet-printed strain gauge sensor for respiratory rate monitoring at different measurements locations.

Ala'aldeen Al-Halhouli, Loiy Al-Ghussain, Saleem El Bouri, Haipeng Liu, Dingchang Zheng

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Recent developments in sensors for wearable device applications.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Ala'aldeen Al-HalhouliMechatronics Engineering Department/NanoLab, School of Applied Technical Sciences, German Jordanian University, P.O. Box 35247, Amman, 11180, Jordan. alaaldeen.alhalhouli@gju.edu.jo.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1078-7583
Loiy Al-GhussainMechatronics Engineering Department/NanoLab, School of Applied Technical Sciences, German Jordanian University, P.O. Box 35247, Amman, 11180, Jordan.
Saleem El BouriMechatronics Engineering Department/NanoLab, School of Applied Technical Sciences, German Jordanian University, P.O. Box 35247, Amman, 11180, Jordan.
Haipeng LiuMedical Device and Technology Research Laboratory, School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ, UK.
Dingchang ZhengResearch Centre of Intelligent Healthcare, Faculty of Health and Life Science, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The respiration rate (RR) is a vital sign in physiological measurement and clinical diagnosis. RR can be measured using stretchable and wearable strain gauge sensors which detect the respiratory movements in the abdomen or thorax areas caused by volumetric changes. In different body locations, the accuracy of RR detection might differ due to different respiratory movement amplitudes. Few studies have quantitatively investigated the effect of the measurement location on the accuracy of new sensors in RR detection. Using a stretchable and wearable inkjet-printed strain gauge (IPSG) sensor, RR was measured from five body locations (umbilicus, upper abdomen, xiphoid process, upper thorax, and diagonal) on 30 healthy test subjects while sitting on an armless chair. At each location, reference RR was simultaneously detected by the e-Health sensor, and the measurement was repeated twice. Subjects were asked about the comfortableness of locations. Based on Levene's test, ANOVA was performed to investigate if there is a significant difference in RR between sensors, measurement locations, and two repeated measurements. Bland-Altman analysis was applied to the RR measurements at different locations. The effects of measurement site and measurement trials on RR difference between sensors were also investigated. There was no significant difference between IPSG and reference sensors, between any locations, and between the two measurements (all p > 0.05). As to the RR deviation between IPSG and reference sensors, there was no significant difference between any locations, or between two measurements (all p > 0.05). All the 30 subjects agreed that diagonal and upper thorax positions were the most uncomfortable and most comfortable locations for measurement, respectively. The IPSG sensor could accurately detect RR at five different locations with good repeatability. Upper thorax was the most comfortable location.

Indexed as

Respiratory RateWearable Electronic DevicesHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicRespirationClinical evaluationInkjet printingPDMSRespiratory rateWearable sensors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.