Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36859403›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Clinical validation of a contactless respiration rate monitor.

Bartosz Bujan, Tobit Fischer, Sarah Dietz-Terjung, Aribert Bauerfeind, Piotr Jedrysiak, Martina Große Sundrup, Janne Hamann, Christoph Schöbel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Long-term night-to-night variability of sleep-disordered breathing using a radar-based home sleep apnea test: a prospective cohort study.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Respiratory rate: The third vital sign.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024
    Article
  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

8 authors.

Bartosz BujanKlinik Lengg AG, Neurorehabilitation Center, Bleulerstrasse 60, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. bartosz.bujan@kliniklengg.ch.
Tobit FischerEssen University Hospital, Ruhrlandklinik, Tueschener Weg 40, 45239, Essen, Germany.
Sarah Dietz-TerjungEssen University Hospital, Ruhrlandklinik, Tueschener Weg 40, 45239, Essen, Germany.
Aribert BauerfeindKlinik Lengg AG, Swiss Epilepsy Center, Bleulerstrasse 60, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Piotr JedrysiakEssen University Hospital, Neurorehabilitation Center, Bleulerstrasse 60, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martina Große SundrupEssen University Hospital, Ruhrlandklinik, Tueschener Weg 40, 45239, Essen, Germany.
Janne HamannKlinik Lengg AG, Swiss Epilepsy Center, Bleulerstrasse 60, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christoph SchöbelEssen University Hospital, Ruhrlandklinik, Tueschener Weg 40, 45239, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiratory rate (RR) is an often underestimated and underreported vital sign with tremendous clinical value. As a predictor of cardiopulmonary arrest, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation or indicator of health state for example in COVID-19 patients, respiratory rate could be especially valuable in remote long-term patient monitoring, which is challenging to implement. Contactless devices for home use aim to overcome these challenges. In this study, the contactless Sleepiz One+ respiration monitor for home use during sleep was validated against the thoracic effort belt. The agreement of instantaneous breathing rate and breathing rate statistics between the Sleepiz One+ device and the thoracic effort belt was initially evaluated during a 20-min sleep window under controlled conditions (no body movement) on a cohort of 19 participants and secondly in a more natural setting (uncontrolled for body movement) during a whole night on a cohort of 139 participants. Excellent agreement was shown for instantaneous breathing rate to be within 3 breaths per minute (Brpm) compared to thoracic effort band with an accuracy of 100% and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.39 Brpm for the setting controlled for movement, and an accuracy of 99.5% with a MAE of 0.48 Brpm for the whole night measurement, respectively. Excellent agreement was also achieved for the respiratory rate statistics over the whole night with absolute errors of 0.43, 0.39 and 0.67 Brpm for the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles, respectively. Based on these results we conclude that the Sleepiz One+ can estimate instantaneous respiratory rate and its summary statistics at high accuracy in a clinical setting. Further studies are required to evaluate the performance in the home environment, however, it is expected that the performance is at similar level, as the measurement conditions for the Sleepiz One+ device are better at home than in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

COVID-19Sleep Wake DisordersHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicMovementRespiratory RateSleep

Identifiers

PMID36859403
PMCPMC9975830

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.