ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Agreement between Vital Signs Measured Using Mat-Type Noncontact Sensors and Those from Conventional Clinical Assessment.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vital signs are crucial for assessing the condition of a patient and detecting early symptom deterioration. Noncontact sensor technology has been developed to take vital measurements with minimal burden. This study evaluated the accuracy of a mat-type noncontact sensor in measuring respiratory and pulse rates in patients with cardiovascular diseases compared to conventional methods. Forty-eight hospitalized patients were included; a mat-type sensor was used to measure their respiratory and pulse rates during bed rest. Differences between mat-type sensors and conventional methods were assessed using the Bland-Altman analysis. The mean difference in respiratory rate was 1.9 breaths/min (limits of agreement (LOA): -4.5 to 8.3 breaths/min), and proportional bias existed with significance (r = 0.63,
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.