Observational studyResuscitation2025
Comparative accuracy of a wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) versus standard EKG during resuscitation of very premature neonates.
Observational study in Resuscitation, 2025. 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.
- Non-Contact and Wireless Wearable Technologies for Neonatal Vital Sign Monitoring in the Delivery Room-A Scoping Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid and accurate heart rate assessment is essential in neonatal resuscitation, particularly for very premature infants where delays can impact timely intervention. A wireless heart rate monitor (NeoBeat) device has been validated in term babies but not in smaller preterm infants. We sought to validate the use of the Neobeat device compared to standard EKG in extremely preterm neonates during resuscitation.
methodsA prospective observational study of very premature neonates undergoing routine resuscitation was conducted at a tertiary care center. Heart rate data were simultaneously recorded using the NeoBeat wireless monitor and a standard three-lead EKG.
resultsThirty very preterm infants (gestational age, (GA) 26.6 ± 1.9 weeks and birth weight range (250-1310 g)) were enrolled. A total of 1690 heart rate pairs were analyzed. A strong correlation and tracking observed between NeoBeat and EKG-derived heart rates (Pearson r = 0.96, Spearman ρ = 0.95), with a mean absolute difference of 3.76 beats per minute (bpm). Correlation remained robust across different resuscitation interventions (Intubation: r = 0.93 vs. No Intubation: r = 0.90, p = 0.207, PPV: r = 0.93 vs. No PPV: r = 0.87, p = 0.726).
conclusionIn very preterm infants, NeoBeat wireless monitor achieved 96 % precision (r = 0.96) and maintained a mean absolute difference of 3.76 bpm compared to EKG, supporting its reliability and accuracy for real time neonatal monitoring, including infants weighing as little as 250 g, though statistical power in this range was limited. Randomized studies comparing NeoBeat to standard EKG are warranted to confirm these findings in extremely preterm infants and explore whether NeoBeat improves clinical outcomes.
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.