ArticleBMC nursing2025
Design and evaluation of a non-contact AI system for monitoring unplanned device removal in neurocritical care.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a non-contact monitoring system for unplanned device removal (UDR) and to preliminarily evaluate its clinical feasibility.
methodsWe developed a non-contact monitoring system for UDR featuring an interactive user interface. It operates reliably on CPU hardware, eliminating the need for GPU acceleration or cloud-based processing while supporting adjustable sensitivity and incorporating multiple mechanisms to mitigate alarm fatigue. We applied the system to neurocritical care patients, using unplanned removal of cranial drainage tubes as a representative scenario, and conducted a proof-of-concept, prospective, randomized controlled trial to determine the number of hand-to-head occurrences detected by the system vs. direct observation.
resultsThe system functioned continuously throughout the study period without any interruption. Individual monitoring durations ranged from 25.7 to 88.9 h, with a median of 45.5 (IQR: 31.0–55.8) hours. No crashes or abnormal terminations are observed. A total of 65 neurocritical care patients were enrolled, with 34 in the intervention group and 31 in the control group. The median number of hand-to-head contacts was 18.0 (IQR: 15.3–20.0) in the intervention group and 12.0 (IQR: 11.0–13.0) in the control group, with a significant difference between groups (p < 0.001). The incidence of UDR was 2.9% in the intervention group versus 16.1% in the control group (p = 0.10).
conclusionThis study preliminarily validated the clinical value of an AI-based system for monitoring UDR in neurocritical care patients. The system provides a non-contact, low-cost, and efficient monitoring solution, and demonstrates strong potential for broader clinical applications. With further optimization, it may be adapted for use with various critical devices in pediatric, respiratory, and other intensive care settings. CLINICAL TRAIL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.