Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40100556›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025

Reliability of an all-in-one wearable sensor for continuous vital signs monitoring in high-risk patients: the NIGHTINGALE clinical validation study.

Martine J M Breteler, Ellen Leigard, Lisa C Hartung, John R Welch, David A Brealey, Sebastian J Fritsch, David Konrad, Daniel Hertzberg, Max Bell, Heleen Rienstra and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. 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

12 authors.

Martine J M Breteler *Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.j.m.breteler@umcutrecht.nl.
Ellen Leigard *Department of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lisa C HartungDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
John R WelchDivision of Critical Care, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David A BrealeyDivision of Critical Care, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Sebastian J FritschDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
David KonradDepartment of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Daniel HertzbergDepartment of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Max BellDepartment of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Heleen RienstraDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Frank E RademakersUniversity Hospitals Leuven, Faculty of Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.
Cor J KalkmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

European Commission 727534
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Continuous vital signs monitoring with wearable systems may improve early recognition of patient deterioration on hospital wards. The objective of this study was to determine whether the wearable Checkpoint Cardio's CPC12S, can accurately measure heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), blood pressure (BP) and temperature continuously. In an observational multicenter method comparison study of 70 high-risk surgical patients admitted to high-dependency wards; HR, RR, SpO2, BP and temperature were simultaneously measured with the CPC12S system and with ICU-grade monitoring systems in four European hospitals. Outcome measures were bias and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Clinical accuracy was assessed with Clarke Error Grid analyses for HR and RR. A total of 3,212 h of vital signs data (on average 26 h per patient) were analyzed. For HR, bias (95% LoA) of the pooled analysis was 0.0 (-3.5 to 3.4), for RR 1.5 (-3.7 to 7.5) and for SpO2 0.4 (-3.1 to 4.0). The CPC12S system overestimated BP, with a bias of 8.9 and wide LoA (-23.3 to 41.2). Temperature was underestimated with a bias of -0.6 and LoA of -1.7 to 0.6. Clarke Error Grid analyses showed that adequate treatment decisions regarding changes in HR and RR would have been made in 99.2% and 92.0% of cases respectively. The CPC12S system showed high accuracy for measurements of HR. The accuracy of RR, SpO2 were slightly overestimated and core temperature underestimated, with LoA outside the predefined clinical acceptable range. The accuracy of BP was unacceptably low.

Indexed as

Vital SignsWearable Electronic DevicesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood PressureBody TemperatureEuropeFemaleHeart RateHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicOxygen SaturationClinical deteriorationContinuous monitoringRemote monitoringVital signsWearable device

Identifiers

PMID40100556
PMCPMC12474673

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.