ArticleDigital health
Accuracy and reliability of a wireless vital signs monitor for hospitalized patients in a low-resource setting.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wearable Electronic Monitoring of Vital Signs in Hospitalised Adults: A Nursing Focused Scoping Review of Clinical, Economic and Implementation Outcomes.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Are Activity Wrist-Worn Devices Accurate for Determining Heart Rate during Intense Exercise?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Validation of wearable vital signs monitoring: A comparison with conventional bedside patient monitors.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of neoGuard in comparison to a conventional bedside monitor on patients in a low-resource clinical setting. Design: This was a single-arm methods comparison study involving the use of a wearable vital signs monitor (neoGuard Setting: The study was conducted at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital, a tertiary care hospital situated in Eastern Uganda. Participants: Thirty patients (10 male, 20 female) were enrolled from the adult recovery ward at JRRH. Participants were eligible for the study if they were at least 18 years of age, had 2 sets of normal vital sign measurements obtained 1 h apart, and were able and willing to provide informed consent. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome measures were (i) bias (mean deviation) and (ii) limits of agreement [95% CI]. Bland-Altman plots were generated to illustrate the level of agreement between the neoGuard Results: Bland-Altman analysis was performed for 24 participants; datasets from six participants were excluded due to missing or invalid measurements. Findings showed a moderate level of agreement for measurement of SpO
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.