Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36290971›Full record

ArticleBiosensors2022

Comparison between Chest-Worn Accelerometer and Gyroscope Performance for Heart Rate and Respiratory Rate Monitoring.

Chiara Romano, Emiliano Schena, Domenico Formica, Carlo Massaroni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Chiara RomanoUnit of Measurements and Biomedical Instrumentation, Department of Engineering, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3525-0213
Emiliano SchenaUnit of Measurements and Biomedical Instrumentation, Department of Engineering, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9696-1265
Domenico FormicaSchool of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.
Carlo MassaroniUnit of Measurements and Biomedical Instrumentation, Department of Engineering, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3090-5623

Funding

H2020/ICT European Project 328 "CONnected through roBOTS (CONBOTS): physically coupling humans to boost handwriting and 329 music learning 871803.POR FESR LAZIO 2014-2020 "Gruppi di ricerca 2020" SensE MAsc project A0375E0145Strategic Projects 2019- POR FESR Lazio 2014- 425 2020 SMILE project A0320-2019- 28107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The demand for wearable devices to simultaneously monitor heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) values has grown due to the incidence increase in cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. The use of inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, embedding both accelerometers and gyroscopes, may ensure a non-intrusive and low-cost monitoring. While both accelerometers and gyroscopes have been assessed independently for both HR and RR monitoring, there lacks a comprehensive comparison between them when used simultaneously. In this study, we used both accelerometers and gyroscopes embedded in a single IMU sensor for the simultaneous monitoring of HR and RR. The following main findings emerged: (i) the accelerometer outperformed the gyroscope in terms of accuracy in both HR and RR estimation; (ii) the window length used to estimate HR and RR values influences the accuracy; and (iii) increasing the length over 25 s does not provide a relevant improvement, but accuracy improves when the subject is seated or lying down, and deteriorates in the standing posture. Our study provides a comprehensive comparison between two promising systems, highlighting their potentiality for real-time cardiorespiratory monitoring. Furthermore, we give new insights into the influence of window length and posture on the systems' performance, which can be useful to spread this approach in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Respiratory RateWearable Electronic DevicesAccelerometryHeart RateMonitoring, Physiologicheart ratemagneto-inertial measurement unitsmechanical vibrationsrespiratory ratewearable systems

Identifiers

PMID36290971
PMCPMC9599933

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.