Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33325827›Full record

Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Wearability Testing of Ambulatory Vital Sign Monitoring Devices: Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

Carlos Areia, Louise Young, Sarah Vollam, Jody Ede, Mauro Santos, Lionel Tarassenko, Peter Watkinson

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carlos Areia *Critical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4668-7069
Louise Young *Critical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9094-1733
Sarah VollamCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2835-6271
Jody EdeCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7289-6991
Mauro SantosNational Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1470-6966
Lionel TarassenkoNational Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0118-1646
Peter WatkinsonCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-3927
National Institute for Health Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely recognition of patient deterioration remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMSs) may provide support to current monitoring practices; however, they need to be thoroughly tested before implementation in the clinical environment for early detection of deterioration.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the wearability of a selection of commercially available AMSs to inform a future prospective study of ambulatory vital sign monitors in an acute hospital ward.

methodsFive pulse oximeters (4 with finger probes and 1 wrist-worn only, collecting pulse rates and oxygen saturation) and 2 chest patches (collecting heart rates and respiratory rates) were selected to be part of this study: The 2 chest-worn patches were VitalPatch (VitalConnect) and Peerbridge Cor (Peerbridge); the 4 wrist-worn devices with finger probe were Nonin WristOx2 3150 (Nonin), Checkme O2+ (Viatom Technology), PC-68B, and AP-20 (both from Creative Medical); and the 1 solely wrist-worn device was Wavelet (Wavelet Health). Adult participants wore each device for up to 72 hours while performing usual "activities of daily living" and were asked to score the perceived exertion and perception of pain or discomfort by using the Borg CR-10 scale; thoughts and feelings caused by the AMS using the Comfort Rating Scale (CRS); and to provide general free text feedback. Median and IQRs were reported and nonparametric tests were used to assess differences between the devices' CRS scores.

resultsQuantitative scores and feedback were collected in 70 completed questionnaires from 20 healthy volunteers, with each device tested approximately 10 times. The Wavelet seemed to be the most wearable device (P<.001) with an overall median (IQR) CRS score of 1.00 (0.88). There were no statistically significant differences in wearability between the chest patches in the CRS total score; however, the VitalPatch was superior in the Attachment section (P=.04) with a median (IQR) score of 3.00 (1.00). General pain and discomfort scores and total percentage of time worn are also reflective of this.

conclusionsOur results suggest that adult participants prefer to wear wrist-worn pulse oximeters without a probe compressing the fingertip and they prefer to wear a smaller chest patch. A compromise between wearability, reliability, and accuracy should be made for successful and practical integration of AMSs within the hospital environment.

Indexed as

Wearable Electronic DevicesAdultHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicOximetryProspective StudiesReproducibility of Resultsambulatory monitoringchest patchpulse oximetervital signswearabilitywearables

Identifiers

PMID33325827
PMCPMC7773507
OpenAlexW3026356348

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.