ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2026
The Usability of Continuous Monitoring Devices With Deterioration Alerting Systems in Noncritical Care Units: Scoping Review.
Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 2026. 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.
- Women's Health Wearables: From Continuous Signals to Actionable Digital Phenotypes Across the Reproductive Lifespan.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From Biosignals to Bedside: A Review of Real-Time Edge Machine Learning for Wearable Health Monitoring.Bioengineering (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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delayed recognition of patient deterioration in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting contributes to serious adverse events. Continuous monitoring devices with alerting systems offer real-time data to support early detection, but their effectiveness depends on usability. While prior reviews focus on clinical outcomes, usability-defined by effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction-remains underexplored. Objective: This study aims to scope the evidence related to the usability of continuous monitoring devices with deterioration alerting in noncritical adult care units. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore was performed for studies published up to November 2024. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. Studies were included if they (1) evaluated the usability-defined as effectiveness, efficiency, or satisfaction-of continuous monitoring devices; (2) focused on adult patients in non-ICU hospital settings; (3) used primary data; (4) were published in English; and (5) described how clinicians received alerts. Results: The search identified 1284 papers, with 35 included. Most studies focused on postoperative patients in surgical wards, mainly from the United States and the Netherlands. Only 2 studies used mixed methods, and 10 reported clinician characteristics. While effectiveness (71%) and efficiency (74%) were widely studied, satisfaction (46%) and usability barriers (29%) received less attention. Conclusions: Continuous monitoring devices with deterioration alerts may reduce rapid response team calls and ICU transfers, save time, and maintain acceptable alarm frequencies with high user satisfaction. However, usability challenges persist, including technical issues, alarm fatigue, patient discomfort, and limited training or workflow integration. This review mapped current use, usability, and barriers, categorized key usability factors for improvement, and identified the need for further research on clinician perspectives and broader health care settings to enhance generalizability.
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.