ArticlePloS one2021
Validation of a new wearable device for type 3 sleep test without flowmeter.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wearable Technologies for Healthy Ageing: Prospects, Challenges, and Ethical Considerations.The Journal of frailty & aging · 2024Article
- Influence of Photoplethysmogram Signal Quality on Pulse Arrival Time during Polysomnography.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Challenges and recommendations for wearable devices in digital health: Data quality, interoperability, health equity, fairness.PLOS digital health · 2022Review
- Blood Pressure Continuous Measurement through a Wearable Device: Development and Validation of a Cuffless Method.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentilation monitoring during sleep is performed by sleep test instrumentation that is uncomfortable for the patients due to the presence of the flowmeter. The objective of this study was to evaluate if an innovative type 3 wearable system, the X10X and X10Y, is able to correctly detect events of apnea and hypopnea and to classify the severity of sleep apnea without the use of a flowmeter.
methods40 patients with sleep disordered breathing were analyzed by continuous and simultaneous recording of X10X and X10Y and another certified type 3 system, SOMNOtouch, used for comparison. Evaluation was performed in terms of quality of respiratory signals (scores from 1, lowest, to 5, highest), duration and classification of apneas, as well as identification and duration of hypopneas.
results580 periods were evaluated. Mean quality assigned score was 3.37±1.42 and 3.25±1.35 for X10X and X10Y and SOMNOtouch, respectively. The agreement between the two systems was evaluated with grades 4 and 5 in 383 out of 580 cases. A high correlation (r2 = 0.921; p<0.001) was found between the AHI indexes obtained from the two systems. X10X and X10Y devices were able to correctly classify 72.3% of the obstructive apneas, 81% of the central apneas, 61.3% of the hypopneas, and 64.6% of the mixed apneas when compared to SOMNOtouch device.
conclusionThe X10X and X10Y devices are able to provide a correct grading of sleep respiratory disorders without the need of a nasal cannula for respiratory flow measurement and can be considered as a type 3 sleep test device for screening tests.
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.