Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40068153›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Impact on Patient Outcomes of Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring on Medical Wards: Propensity-Matched Analysis.

Bradley Rowland, Amit Saha, Vida Motamedi, Richa Bundy, Scott Winsor, Daniel McNavish, William Lippert, Ashish K Khanna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Bradley RowlandDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Hospital Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8616-6908
Amit SahaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3542-4319
Vida MotamediDepartment of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7738-4901
Richa BundyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Hospital Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2506-5682
Scott WinsorCorewell Health Frederik Meijer Heart & Vascular Institute, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5241-362X
Daniel McNavishCorewell Health Frederik Meijer Heart & Vascular Institute, Michigan State University, Grand Rapids, MI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9394-7110
William LippertDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Hospital Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7684-7553
Ashish K KhannaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9083-891X

Funding

Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR001421 · NCATS · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MILLER, DAVID P · 2015 to 2023
$5.8M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous and wireless vital sign (VS) monitoring on hospital wards is superior to intermittent VS monitoring at detecting VS abnormalities; however, the impact on clinical outcomes remains to be confirmed. A recent propensity-matched study of primary surgical patients found decreased odds of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in patients receiving continuous monitoring. Primary surgical patients are inherently different from their medical counterparts who typically have high morbidity, including frailty. Continuous monitoring research has been limited in primary medical patients.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of primary medical patients who received either continuous or, as a contemporaneous control, intermittent vital monitoring as the standard of care using propensity matching.

methodsPropensity-matched analysis of a population-based sample of 7971 patients admitted to the medical wards between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single, tertiary United States medical center. The continuous monitoring device measures oxygen saturation, heart rate, respiratory rate, continuous noninvasive blood pressure, and either 3-lead or 5-lead electrocardiogram. Patients received either 12 hours or more of continuous and wireless VS monitoring (n=1450) or intermittent VS monitoring (n=6521). The primary outcome was the odds of a composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU transfer during hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were the odds of individual components of the primary outcome, as well as heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and rapid response team (RRT) activations.

resultsThose who received intermittent VS monitoring had greater odds of a composite of in-hospital mortality or ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 2.79, 95% CI 1.89-4.25; P<.001) compared with those who had continuous and wireless VS monitoring. The odds of HF (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.28; P=.77), MI (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.77-3.47; P=.23), AKI (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-1.02; P=.06), and RRT activation (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19; P=.62) were similar in both groups.

conclusionsIn this propensity-matched study, medical ward patients who received standard of care intermittent VS monitoring were at nearly 3 times greater odds of transfer to the ICU or death compared with those who received continuous VS monitoring. Our study was primarily limited by the inability to match patients on admission diagnosis due to limitations in electronic health record data. Other limitations included the number of and reasons for false alarms, which can be challenging with continuous monitoring strategies. Given the limitations of this work, these observations need to be confirmed with prospective interventional trials.

Indexed as

Vital SignsAgedFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPropensity Scoreadultclinicalclinical outcomecontemporaneouscontemporaneous controlcontinuoushospital wardmedical wardmonitoringmonitoring deviceoutcomespatient monitoringpatient outcometeenagervital signwardwearablewirelesswireless devicewireless monitoringyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID40068153
PMCPMC11937710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.