ArticleScientific reports2024
Effect of measurement procedure errors on assessing lung fluid via remote dielectric sensing system.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote dielectric sensing for pulmonary congestion assessment: current concepts and clinical perspectives.ESC heart failure · 2026Review
- Innovative Advances in Non-Invasive Detection Technologies for Heart Failure: Synergistic Application of Multimodal Sensing and Intelligent Algorithms.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- The potential of non-invasive remote dielectric sensing in predicting short-term prognosis of patients with pulmonary hypertension.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Observational
- Impact of Remote Dielectric Sensing on Predicting Worsening Heart Failure During Hospitalization for Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
Abstract
The study assessed the impact of procedural errors on the remote dielectric sensing system (ReDS), a non-invasive lung fluid assessment technology, in an Asian cohort. Healthy volunteers underwent ReDS measurements following manufacturer's instructions, with two consecutive measurements one minute apart. A subset of 20 participants had modified procedure settings. Reliability was measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The study included 86 healthy volunteers, and all ReDS measurements fell within the recommended normal range. The intra-rater reliability of ReDS measurements was excellent, with an ICC of 0.968. Among the subset of 20 subjects, deviations in height and weight did not significantly affect ReDS values. However, deviations in chest size by ± 3 cm had a noticeable impact on ReDS measures, and incorrect station selection led to fluctuations in ReDS readings. In conclusion, the ReDS system demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability and applicability in an Asian cohort. Procedural errors, such as chest size measurement and station selection, significantly influenced ReDS measurements. Adherence to standardized operating procedures is crucial to ensure accurate and consistent results. These findings highlight the importance of adherence to manufacturer instructions when utilizing ReDS for lung fluid assessment, thereby enhancing its reliability and clinical applicability.
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.