ReviewMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Noncontact Sensors for Vital Signs Measurement: A Narrative Review.
Review in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive physiology-informed correction for reliable remote photoplethysmography heart-rate monitoring.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Non-Contact Measurement of Human Vital Signs in Dynamic Conditions Using Microwave Techniques: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- SMART MAT: Fibre Optic Innovation for Bedside Monitoring and Validation of Continuous Vital Signs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Key Fundamentals and Examples of Sensors for Human Health: Wearable, Non-Continuous, and Non-Contact Monitoring Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vital signs are crucial for monitoring changes in patient health status. This review compared the performance of noncontact sensors with traditional methods for measuring vital signs and investigated the clinical feasibility of noncontact sensors for medical use. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) database for articles published through September 30, 2023, and used the key search terms "vital sign," "monitoring," and "sensor" to identify relevant articles. We included studies that measured vital signs using traditional methods and noncontact sensors and excluded articles not written in English, case reports, reviews, and conference presentations. In total, 129 studies were identified, and eligible articles were selected based on their titles, abstracts, and full texts. Three articles were finally included in the review, and the types of noncontact sensors used in each selected study were an impulse radio ultrawideband radar, a microbend fiber-optic sensor, and a mat-type air pressure sensor. Participants included neonates in the neonatal intensive care unit, patients with sleep apnea, and patients with coronavirus disease. Their heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and arterial oxygen saturation were measured. Studies have demonstrated that the performance of noncontact sensors is comparable to that of traditional methods of vital signs measurement. Noncontact sensors have the potential to alleviate concerns related to skin disorders associated with traditional skin-contact vital signs measurement methods, reduce the workload for healthcare providers, and enhance patient comfort. This article reviews the medical use of noncontact sensors for measuring vital signs and aimed to determine their potential 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.