Trial reportJAMA network open2026
Continuous vs Intermittent Postoperative Vital Sign Monitoring: A Cluster Randomized Crossover Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04574908 (A Pilot Trial of Continuous Portable Postoperative Hemodynamic And Saturation Monitoring On Hospital Wards), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
A Pilot Trial of Continuous Portable Postoperative Hemodynamic And Saturation Monitoring On Hospital Wards
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical Surveillance Technologies in Nonintensive Care Unit Hospital Settings: Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- From perception to response: translational progress implementation challenges of wearable non-invasive continuous vital sign monitoring in early warning for inpatients.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Associations Between Opioid Timing and Postoperative Desaturation Burden Following Metabolic Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Continuous postoperative monitoring on general nursing units detects vital sign abnormalities that are missed with conventional intermittent monitoring. Early recognition may prompt interventions to limit potentially harmful blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation perturbations. Objective: To test the hypothesis that continuous unblinded monitoring of vital signs would decrease blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation abnormalities compared with intermittent monitoring in patients recovering from noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multiple crossover randomized cluster trial in 2 postoperative hospital wards included patients recovering from noncardiac surgery and was conducted from October 7, 2020, to October 7, 2021. Data were analyzed from January to July in 2025. Intervention: One participating ward was randomized to an initial month of either unblinded or clinician-blinded continuous vital sign monitoring and thereafter alternated at 4-week intervals for 1 year; the other ward always used the alternate monitoring approach. All patients had intermittent vital signs always available, whereas continuous vital signs were only available to clinicians during unblinded weeks. When continuous vital signs were unblinded, alerts at a mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg, an oxygen saturation less than 90%, and a heart rate more than 110 per minute were transmitted to treating teams. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were durations of hypotension, hypoxemia, and tachycardia exceeding alert thresholds during the initial 48 hours of ward admission or until the third postoperative morning. Secondary outcomes were interventions categorized, with increasing severity, as none, independent nursing intervention, physician notification, or activation of the hospital emergency or rapid response systems. Results: Among 798 total patients (median [IQR] age, 70.7 [62.5-78.7] years; 440 females [55%]), who included 404 assigned to continuous monitoring and 394 to intermittent monitoring, 561 (70%) with the American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status III were included in the final analysis. The duration of oxygen saturation less than 90% was reduced by approximately 30 minutes over 48 hours of monitoring time, in continuously monitored patients (unblinded continuous monitoring group median [IQR], 70.8 [23.1-154.2] minutes vs blinded intermittent group median [IQR], 103.5 [29.5-249.7] minutes; geometric means ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.95]; P = .002). Hypotension and tachycardia durations were not significantly reduced. The number of interventions was similar, with approximately half in each group receiving new oxygen therapy (unblinded continuous monitoring: 224 [55%] and blinded intermittent monitoring: 214 [54%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized crossover trial of continuous compared with intermittent vital sign monitoring, continuous monitoring reduced the duration of desaturation in patients recovering from noncardiac surgery on general hospital wards. Reducing the duration of vital sign abnormalities may decrease the risk of more serious complications, and robust patient-centric outcomes trials seem warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04574908.
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.