ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Continuous monitoring of critically ill patients using photoplethysmography-the road to a less invasive ICU monitoring.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of the Buteyko breathing technique on sleep quality, fatigue, and oxygen saturation in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Trial
- Navigating the artificial intelligence landscape in trauma, critical care and emergency general surgery: insights from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) 2025 Annual Meeting Panel Discussion.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Review
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
Introduction: Intensive Care Medicine is based on continuous timely monitoring of physiological variables to guide modulation of therapy. This monitoring is often invasive, but there is a trend for the adoption of non-invasive devices, already largely used in wards and homecare, to reduce risk of device-associated side effects. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a non-invasive equipment (Corsano Cardiowatch 287-2B) in the assessment of blood pressure, heart rate, temperature and oxygen saturation in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. Method: This prospective cohort study developed in an adult ICU admitting patients for level 3 and 2 of care compared the Corsano Cardiowatch 287-2B with the ICU standard monitoring, namely continuous electrocardiogram, invasive arterial blood pressure through arterial catheter, pulse oximeter and central thermometer. Concordance was assessed using the Bland-Altman test. Results: Nineteen patients were included in the study. The number of time-points included for comparison between the two monitoring strategies were more than 50,000 in pulse and heart rate, around 40,000 in oxygen saturation and body temperature and 1,200 in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Bias for heart rate and pulse were -1.73 and -0.77, respectively. The limits of agreement were between -14.90 and 11.33, for heart rate, and -14.25 and 12.71, for pulse. Small biases were also estimated for oxygen saturation (0.21), with limits of agreement between -6.97 and 7.39, and body temperature (0.58), with limits between -1.12 and 2.47. Concordance was low for diastolic and systolic blood pressure, with bias of 5.18 and -11.27, respectively. Conclusions: Corsano Cardiowatch 287-2B reaches good levels of concordance compared to traditional ICU monitoring for heart and pulse rates and may be a valuable solution for their less invasive monitoring, with promising results for future operationalization for oxygen saturation and body temperature. Concordance is low for blood pressure, meaning the device is currently unsuitable for use with that purpose.
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.