ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2024
Video plethysmography for contactless blood pressure and heart rate measurement in perioperative care.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05165381 (Video Plethysmography for Contactless Vital Signs Measurement), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Video Plethysmography for Contactless Vital Signs Measurement: A Pilot Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of remote Video Plethysmography (VPPG) for contactless measurements of blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) in adult surgical patients in a hospital setting. An iPad Pro was used to record a 1.5-minute facial video of the participant's face and VPPG was used to extract vital signs measurements. A standard medical device (Welch Allyn) was used for comparison to measure BP and HR. Trial registration: NCT05165381. Two-hundred-sixteen participants consented and completed the contactless BP and HR monitoring (mean age 54.1 ± 16.8 years, 58% male). The consent rate was 75% and VPPG was 99% successful in capturing BP and HR. VPPG predicted SBP, DBP, and HR with a measurement bias ± SD, -8.18 ± 16.44 mmHg, - 6.65 ± 9.59 mmHg, 0.09 ± 6.47 beats/min respectively. Pearson's correlation for all measurements between VPPG and standard medical device was significant. Correlation for SBP was moderate (0.48), DBP was weak (0.29), and HR was strong (0.85). Most patients were satisfied with the non-contact technology with an average rating of 8.7/10 and would recommend it for clinical use. VPPG was highly accurate in measuring HR, and is currently not accurate in measuring BP in surgical patients. The VPPG BP algorithm showed limitations in capturing individual variations in blood pressure, highlighting the need for further improvements to render it clinically effective across all ranges. Contactless vital signs monitoring was well-received and earned a high satisfaction score.
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.