Accuracy and reliability of a wireless vital signs monitor for hospitalized patients in a low-resource setting

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of neoGuard in comparison to a conventional bedside monitor on patients in a low-resource clinical setting. Design This was a single-arm methods comparison study involving the use of a wearable vital signs monitor (neoGuardTM) versus a conventional bedside monitor (Edan iM8). Setting The study was conducted at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital, a tertiary care hospital situated in Eastern Uganda. Participants Thirty patients (10 male, 20 female) were enrolled from the adult recovery ward at JRRH. Participants were eligible for the study if they were at least 18 years of age, had 2 sets of normal vital sign measurements obtained 1 h apart, and were able and willing to provide informed consent. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome measures were (i) bias (mean deviation) and (ii) limits of agreement [95% CI]. Bland-Altman plots were generated to illustrate the level of agreement between the neoGuardTM technology and the Edan iM8 monitor. Results Bland-Altman analysis was performed for 24 participants; datasets from six participants were excluded due to missing or invalid measurements. Findings showed a moderate level of agreement for measurement of SpO2, PR, and RR, with >80% of subject means falling within the predefined acceptability limits. However, there was also notable variation in accuracy between subjects, with large standard deviations observed for measurement of all four parameters. While the level of agreement for measurement of temperature was low, this is partly explained by limitations in the comparison method.

Feasibility, performance and acceptability of an innovative vital signs monitor for sick newborns in Western Kenya: A mixed-methods study

“…In a subsequent field study performed on adult patients in a hospital recovery ward in Uganda, neoGuard performed comparably well to a conventional bedside monitor with accuracy limits for PR (±6 bpm), oxygen saturation (±4%) and respiratory rate (±7 breaths per minute) meeting our expected threshold for a less controlled field trial. 19 In prior validation studies, we had significantly lower rates of missing data or invalid data (10%–15%).…”

“…Currently, there exists a variety of wearable vital signs monitoring technologies that have been investigated for various populations and settings such as: newborns, 15 , 16 pediatric and adult patients, 17 – 19 pregnant women 20 , 21 and post-surgical patients. 11 , 22 However, there is need for more evidence of feasibility, acceptability and successful implementation of wearable vital signs monitors, 23 most especially in the context of resource-limited settings.…”

Are Activity Wrist-Worn Devices Accurate for Determining Heart Rate during Intense Exercise?

“…Wrist-worn devices for activity and human resources monitoring have become increasingly popular, and can help motivate athletes or patients [53]. However, wearable technology faces several important limitations, some biologically inherent and others technological, that avert the proliferation of wearable medical devices, including the lack of high-quality validation studies at different intensity levels [3,13,15,19,42,43,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]. Although accuracy in HR measurement is acceptable in chest strap and electrode-based heart rate monitors, the accuracy of HR measurement in wrist wearables with PPG is uncertain [56,[62][63][64][65][66].…”