ArticlePloS one2026
Usefulness of lung sound data collection using Skeeper SM-300® device: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigital stethoscope has been introduced to clinical practice and are developing in many aspects. Overwhelming pandemic requires non-contact healthcare support, and recent growth of artificial intelligence necessitates high-quality data collection.
objectivesWe studied the usefulness of a novel, remotely applicable device Skeeper SM-300®.
methodsA single center, prospective, single-arm, investigator-blinded investigation was conducted. Sixty-four participants (normal individuals, stable/exacerbated COPD, stable/exacerbated bronchial asthma, pneumonia, ILD, and pleural effusion) had their lung sounds examined with a conventional stethoscope, while simultaneously recorded using the device, and classified into normal, crackle, wheezing and decreased sound. Three specialists (Raters) listened to the digitally recorded lung sounds and classified them. Non-inferiority of Skeeper SM-300® compared with conventional stethoscopy was examined. Audible acceptability of tidal breathing sounds compared with deep breathing sound, examinees' comfort with the new device, acceptability of digital lung sounds, and diagnostic accuracy after listening to the recorded lung sounds were also evaluated.
resultsAmong four breathing sounds, wheezing had the highest percentage of correct answers. Three Raters' judgment of classifying electronic lung sounds showed consistent agreement with the conventional stethoscopic result. demonstrating statistically significant agreement between the conventional and electronic stethoscopy (к = 0.8337, к = 0.8158, and к = 0.8043, respectively). Audible acceptability of tidal breathing sounds resulted in fair agreement, with a к-value ranging from 0.5 to 0.8. A majority of patients expressed that they were fairly comfortable with being examined with the device. Diagnostic accuracy on listening to "deep breath" showed a nearly perfect agreement.
conclusionWe verified that the novel electronic stethoscope showed high credibility, yielded highly accurate results, and exhibited non-inferiority compared with conventional stethoscopy. Our investigation supports the usefulness of this novel digital auscultatory device as a credible substitute for conventional analogue stethoscopy.
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.