ArticleBMJ open2020
Patch validation: an observational study protocol for the evaluation of a multisignal wearable sensor in patients during anaesthesia and in the postanaesthesia care unit.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04344093 (Validation of a Connected Patch, an Alternative to Conventional Monitoring), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Validation of a Connected Patch, an Alternative to Conventional Monitoring
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- One small wearable, one giant leap for patient safety?Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2022Article
- Screening for postoperative vital signs abnormalities, and particularly hemodynamic ones, by continuous monitoring: protocol for the Biobeat-Postop cohort study.F1000Research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExcept for operating rooms, postanaesthesia care units and intensive care units, where the monitoring of vital signs is continuous, intermittent care is standard practice. However, at a time when only the patients with the most serious conditions are hospitalised and only a fraction of these patients are in intensive care units, this type of monitoring is no longer sufficient. Wireless monitoring has been proposed, but it requires rigorous validation. The aim of this observational study is to compare vital signs obtained from a precordial patch sensor to those obtained with conventional monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This patch validation trial will be an observational, prospective, single-centre open study of 115 anaesthetised adult patients monitored with both a wireless sensor (myAngel VitalSigns, Devinnova, Montpellier, France) and a standard bedside monitor (Carescape Monitor B850, GE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois). Both sensors will be used to record peripheral oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, heart rate, body temperature and blood pressure (systolic and diastolic). The main objective will be to assess the degree of agreement between the two systems during the patients' stay in the postanaesthesia care unit, both at the raw signal level and at the clinical parameter level. The secondary objectives will be to assess the same performance under anaesthesia, the frequency of missing data or artefacts, the diagnostic performance of the systems, the influence of patients' characteristics on agreement between the two systems, the adverse events and the acceptability of the patch to patients. Bland-Altman plots will be used in the main analysis to detect discrepancies and estimate the limits of agreement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethical Committee (Toulouse, France) on 10 April 2020. We are not yet recruiting subjects for this study. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04344093.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.