Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2024
Measurement accuracy of a microwave doppler sensor beneath the mattress as a continuous respiratory rate monitor: a method comparison study.
Observational study 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. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Detection of Acute Exacerbation of Lobar Pneumonia and Heart Failure Using an Anomaly-Detection System Based on a Circadian Rhythm Model Constructed from Non-contact Vital Data.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2025Article
- Noninvasive Early Detection of Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome of COVID-19 Inpatients Using a Piezoelectric Respiratory Rates Sensor.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNon-contact continuous respiratory rate monitoring is preferred for early detection of patient deterioration. However, this technique is under development; a gold standard respiratory monitor has not been established. Therefore, this prospective observational method comparison study aimed to compare the measurement accuracy of a non-contact continuous respiratory rate monitor, a microwave Doppler sensor positioned beneath the mattress, with that of other monitors.
methodsThe respiratory rate of intensive care unit patients was simultaneously measured using a microwave Doppler sensor, capnography, thoracic impedance pneumography, and a piezoelectric sensor beneath the mattress. Bias and 95% limits of agreement between the respiratory rate measured using capnography (standard reference) and that measured using the other three methods were calculated using Bland-Altman analysis for repeated measures. Clarke error grid (CEG) analysis evaluated the sensor's ability to assist in correct clinical decision-making.
resultsEighteen participants were included, and 2,307 data points were analyzed. The bias values (95% limits of agreement) of the microwave Doppler sensor, thoracic impedance pneumography, and piezoelectric sensor were 0.2 (- 4.8 to 5.2), 1.5 (- 4.4 to 7.4), and 0.4 (- 4.0 to 4.8) breaths per minute, respectively. Clinical decisions evaluated using CEG analyses were correct 98.1% of the time for the microwave Doppler sensor, which was similar to the performance of the other devices.
conclusionThe microwave Doppler sensor had a small bias but relatively low precision, similar to other devices. In CEG analyses, the risk of each monitor leading to inadequate clinical decision-making was low. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000038900, February 1, 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37792139What 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.