ArticleFrontiers in digital health2024
Accuracy and role of consumer facing wearable technology for continuous monitoring during endoscopic procedures.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Consumer facing wearable devices capture significant amounts of biometric data. The primary aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of consumer-facing wearable technology for continuous monitoring compared to standard anesthesia monitoring during endoscopic procedures. Secondary aims were to assess patient and provider perceptions of these devices in clinical settings. Methods: Patients undergoing endoscopy with anesthesia support from June 2021 to June 2022 were provided a smartwatch (Apple Watch Series 7, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA) and accessories including continuous ECG monitor and pulse oximeter (Qardio Inc., San Francisco, CA) for the duration of their procedure. Vital sign data from the wearable devices was compared to in-room anesthesia monitors. Concordance with anesthesia monitoring was assessed with interclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Surveys were then distributed to patients and clinicians to assess patient and provider preferences regarding the use of the wearable devices during procedures. Results: 292 unique procedures were enrolled with a median anesthesia duration of 34 min (IQR 25-47). High fidelity readings were successfully recorded with wearable devices for heart rate in 279 (95.5%) cases, oxygen in 203 (69.5%), and respiratory rate in 154 (52.7%). ICCs for watch and accessories were 0.54 (95% CI 0.46-0.62) for tachycardia, 0.03 (95% CI 0-0.14) for bradycardia, and 0.33 (0.22-0.43) for oxygen desaturation. Patients generally felt the devices were more accurate (56.3% vs. 20.0% agree, Conclusion: Smartwatches perform poorly for continuous data collection compared to gold standard anesthesia monitoring. Refinement in software development is required if these devices are to be used for continuous, intensive vital sign monitoring.
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.