SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
From perception to response: translational progress implementation challenges of wearable non-invasive continuous vital sign monitoring in early warning for inpatients.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intermittent ward observations may miss short-lived physiological deterioration, and failures in observation, documentation, scoring, or escalation can widen this surveillance gap. Wearable, non-invasive continuous vital-sign monitoring may narrow the gap, but its translational value depends on whether continuous data are converted into timely and sustainable clinical response. Objective: To map evidence on wearable continuous or near-continuous vital-sign monitoring for inpatient deterioration detection, alerting, clinical response, workflow integration, and implementation. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-ScR-informed scoping review. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from January 2010 to May 2026. Eligible reports evaluated wearable, non-invasive monitoring in non-ICU inpatient settings and reported technical, clinical, workflow, user-experience, or implementation outcomes. Findings were synthesized along a monitor-response pathway. Results: Of 6,093 database records identified, 32 studies were included. Evidence was concentrated in signal acquisition, technical feasibility, abnormality detection, and user experience. Continuous monitoring identified oxygen desaturation and abnormal respiratory-rate episodes not captured by intermittent observations, but respiratory-rate performance varied with the sensor and comparator method. Reporting of standard care, alarm configuration, bedside reassessment, escalation procedures, and response fidelity was incomplete. Observational and before-after studies reported favorable clinical outcomes in selected settings, whereas randomized and pragmatic trials were heterogeneous and several pilot or feasibility studies were not designed or powered for uncommon clinical endpoints. One preliminary prediction-modeling study was identified. Conclusion: The evidence base is more mature for the afferent limb of monitoring and detection than for the efferent limb of clinical assessment, intervention, escalation, and outcome improvement. Wearable monitoring should be evaluated as a complex monitor-response intervention, with explicit standard care, alarm logic, response protocols, implementation support, and response fidelity.
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.