ArticleJMIR human factors2026
Assistive Technologies for Pulse-Based Tele-Practice in Traditional Chinese Medicine: Two-Phase, Dual-Method Feasibility and Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulse palpation is essential for accurate traditional Chinese medicine diagnosis. However, this tactile-sensory-dependent technique is not feasible in teleconference, leaving traditional Chinese medicine underserved by conventional tele-practice frameworks. To address this, we developed an Assistive Pulse Data Collection (APDC; Logistics and Supply Chain MultiTech R&D Centre) device. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate feasibility and to preliminarily examine the Chinese medicine practitioners (CMPs) agreement on real-person pulses and machine-generated pulses and collect users' feedback. Methods: Following World Health Organization guidelines for piloting new medical technologies, a 2-phase, dual-method evaluation was conducted. In the feasibility phase, 10 participants' pulses were recorded using the APDC device. Overall, 5 CMPs evaluated the participants' and machine-generated pulses using a 5-point Likert scale (1="Strongly Disagree" to 5="Strongly Agree"). In the pilot phase, 10 CMPs assessed pulses from 42 participants and refined the regenerated outputs for comparison. Quantitative and qualitative feedback from CMPs and participants was collected. Results: CMPs evaluated machine-regenerated pulses across 4 parameters: frequency (mean agreement score 4.1, SD 0.6), rhythm (mean 3.8, SD 0.6), width (mean 2.7, SD 0.9), and force (mean 2.4, SD 1), indicating moderate-to-high agreement for frequency or rhythm but lower consensus for width and force. Following device refinements (eg, adjustable armrest, pressure calibration, and pulse algorithms), the pilot phase CMPs' agreement improved for frequency (mean 4.3, SD 0.7) and rhythm (mean 4, SD 0.8), while width (mean 3, SD 0.9) and force (mean 2.8, SD 0.9) remained suboptimal. CMPs reported enhanced clarity (mean 4.3, SD 1) but persistent inefficiency (mean 2.5, SD 0.5) and neutral satisfaction (mean 2.6, SD 0.5). Participants maintained favorable ratings for comfort (mean 4, SD 0.7), easy to use (mean 3.9, SD 0.8), and high satisfaction (mean 4, SD 0.7). Conclusions: The APDC device is feasible and enables CMPs to take remote pulse feature assessment, but further optimization of pulse force and width is warranted.
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.