Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36692798›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2023

Detecting Patient Deterioration Early Using Continuous Heart rate and Respiratory rate Measurements in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

Guido M Peters, Roel V Peelen, Vincent Jhs Gilissen, Mark V Koning, Wim H van Harten, Carine J M Doggen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Guido M PetersClinical Research Center, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Roel V PeelenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Vincent Jhs GilissenDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Mark V KoningDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Management, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Wim H van HartenDepartment of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Carine J M DoggenClinical Research Center, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands. cdoggen@rijnstate.nl.
Rijnstate Hospital · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresenting symptoms of COVID-19 patients are unusual compared with many other illnesses. Blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate may stay within acceptable ranges as the disease progresses. Consequently, intermittent monitoring does not detect deterioration as it is happening. We investigated whether continuously monitoring heart rate and respiratory rate enables earlier detection of deterioration compared with intermittent monitoring, or introduces any risks.

methodsWhen available, patients admitted to a COVID-19 ward received a wireless wearable sensor which continuously measured heart rate and respiratory rate. Two intensive care unit (ICU) physicians independently assessed sensor data, indicating when an intervention might be necessary (alarms). A third ICU physician independently extracted clinical events from the electronic medical record (EMR events). The primary outcome was the number of true alarms. Secondary outcomes included the time difference between true alarms and EMR events, interrater agreement for the alarms, and severity of EMR events that were not detected.

resultsIn clinical practice, 48 (EMR) events occurred. None of the 4 ICU admissions were detected with the sensor. Of the 62 sensor events, 13 were true alarms (also EMR events). Of these, two were related to rapid response team calls. The true alarms were detected 39 min (SD = 113) before EMR events, on average. Interrater agreement was 10%. Severity of the 38 non-detected events was similar to the severity of 10 detected events.

conclusionContinuously monitoring heart rate and respiratory rate does not reliably detect deterioration in COVID-19 patients when assessed by ICU physicians.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiratory RateHeart RateHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicVital SignsContinuous MonitoringCOVID-19Deterioration DetectionHeart RateRespiratory RateWireless Sensor

Identifiers

PMID36692798
PMCPMC9871416
OpenAlexW4317830682

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.