ArticleJournal of neurosurgical anesthesiology2026
Workflow, Alarm Notification and Technology Acceptance of Continuous, Wearable-Based Vital Sign Monitoring on A Neurosurgical Ward-A Pilot Feasibility Study.
Article in Journal of neurosurgical anesthesiology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContinuous, wearable-based vital sign monitoring can enhance patient safety and reduce intensive care demands but is not routinely used on standard neurosurgical wards. This study assessed alarm events and technology acceptance during the implementation of such a system for postoperative patients in a university hospital's neurosurgical ward.
methodsIn this pilot feasibility study, selected patients were continuously monitored for 12 to 24 hours after elective neurosurgery on a 44-bed ward. Phase 1 (June to December 2019) used 12 mobile units with manual alarm documentation; Phase 2 (August 2023 to January 2024) used 44 fixed bedside units with automatic documentation. Alarm patterns and nurse-rated technology acceptance (4-point Likert scale) were analyzed.
resultsVital signs were monitored in 214 patients (median age: 58, IQR: 42 to 70) in Phase 1 and 290 patients (median age: 60, IQR: 43 to 77) in Phase 2. Procedures included cranial, spinal, and peripheral nerve surgeries. Phase 1 recorded 30 nonclinical alarms and no clinical alarms. In contrast, Phase 2 registered 14,500 clinical and 185,744 nonclinical alarms, mostly from detached sensors (177,989/185,744; 96%). Clinical alarms were mainly due to hypoxia (8305/14,500; 57%) and tachycardia (3487/14,500; 30%). Most alarms were acknowledged within 30 seconds (clinical: 12,969/14,500; 90% and nonclinical: 181,447/185,744; 98%), with delayed responses mostly for nonclinical events (3625/4189; 87%). Nurses reported improved convenience, usability, and system connection in Phase 2.
conclusionsWearable-based vital sign monitoring is feasible on neurosurgical wards, but high nonclinical alarm rates highlight the need to refine alarm management strategies for effective clinical integration.
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.