Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34524087›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

A Chest Patch for Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring: Clinical Validation Study During Movement and Controlled Hypoxia.

Carlos Morgado Areia, Mauro Santos, Sarah Vollam, Marco Pimentel, Louise Young, Cristian Roman, Jody Ede, Philippa Piper, Elizabeth King, Owen Gustafson and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Real-Time SpOSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Carlos Morgado AreiaCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4668-7069
Mauro SantosNational Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1470-6966
Sarah VollamCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2835-6271
Marco PimentelNational Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3696-8852
Louise YoungCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9094-1733
Cristian RomanNational Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9164-8659
Jody EdeCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7289-6991
Philippa PiperCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3724-5848
Elizabeth KingTherapies Clinical Service Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7360-7004
Owen GustafsonTherapies Clinical Service Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5450-3696
Mirae HarfordCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2851-1577
Akshay ShahRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1869-2231
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 · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe standard of care in general wards includes periodic manual measurements, with the data entered into track-and-trigger charts, either on paper or electronically. Wearable devices may support health care staff, improve patient safety, and promote early deterioration detection in the interval between periodic measurements. However, regulatory standards for ambulatory cardiac monitors estimating heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) do not specify performance criteria during patient movement or clinical conditions in which the patient's oxygen saturation varies. Therefore, further validation is required before clinical implementation and deployment of any wearable system that provides continuous vital sign measurements.

objectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the agreement between a chest-worn patch (VitalPatch) and a gold standard reference device for HR and RR measurements during movement and gradual desaturation (modeling a hypoxic episode) in a controlled environment.

methodsAfter the VitalPatch and gold standard devices (Philips MX450) were applied, participants performed different movements in seven consecutive stages: at rest, sit-to-stand, tapping, rubbing, drinking, turning pages, and using a tablet. Hypoxia was then induced, and the participants' oxygen saturation gradually reduced to 80% in a controlled environment. The primary outcome measure was accuracy, defined as the mean absolute error (MAE) of the VitalPatch estimates when compared with HR and RR gold standards (3-lead electrocardiography and capnography, respectively). We defined these as clinically acceptable if the rates were within 5 beats per minute for HR and 3 respirations per minute (rpm) for RR.

resultsComplete data sets were acquired for 29 participants. In the movement phase, the HR estimates were within prespecified limits for all movements. For RR, estimates were also within the acceptable range, with the exception of the sit-to-stand and turning page movements, showing an MAE of 3.05 (95% CI 2.48-3.58) rpm and 3.45 (95% CI 2.71-4.11) rpm, respectively. For the hypoxia phase, both HR and RR estimates were within limits, with an overall MAE of 0.72 (95% CI 0.66-0.78) beats per minute and 1.89 (95% CI 1.75-2.03) rpm, respectively. There were no significant differences in the accuracy of HR and RR estimations between normoxia (≥90%), mild (89.9%-85%), and severe hypoxia (<85%).

conclusionsThe VitalPatch was highly accurate throughout both the movement and hypoxia phases of the study, except for RR estimation during the two types of movements. This study demonstrated that VitalPatch can be safely tested in clinical environments to support earlier detection of cardiorespiratory deterioration.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN61535692; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN61535692.

Indexed as

Vital SignsWearable Electronic DevicesHumansHypoxiaMonitoring, PhysiologicRespiratory Ratechest patchclinical validationheart rateremote monitoringrespiratory ratevital signswearable

Identifiers

PMID34524087
PMCPMC8482195
OpenAlexW3131366805

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.