Why the study?
Most research on contactless photoplethysmography (cPPG) is conducted in laboratory settings or healthy populations, prompting a review of its monitoring performance in adults within clinical settings.
Does contactless photoplethysmography accurately monitor vital signs compared to conventional contact methods in adults in clinical settings?
Does contactless photoplethysmography accurately monitor vital signs compared to conventional contact methods in adults in clinical settings?
Contactless photoplethysmography demonstrates accuracy for heart rate monitoring comparable to ECG in clinical settings, though movement and lighting artifacts remain challenges.
cPPG accurately measures HR in clinical adults; extends validation beyond lab/healthy cohorts for remote monitoring.
Contactless photoplethysmography (cPPG) is a method of physiological monitoring. It differs from conventional monitoring methods (e.g., saturation probe) by ensuring no contact with the subject by use of a camera. The majority of research on cPPG is conducted in a laboratory setting or in healthy populations. This review aims to evaluate the current literature on monitoring using cPPG in adults within a clinical setting. Adhering to the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA, 2020) guidelines, OVID, Webofscience, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.org were systematically searched by two researchers. Research articles using cPPG for monitoring purposes in adults within a clinical setting were selected. Twelve studies with a total of 654 individuals were included. Heart rate (HR) was the most investigated vital sign ( n = 8) followed by respiratory rate (( n = 2), Sp02 ( n = 2), and HR variability ( n = 2). Four studies were included in a meta-analysis of HR compared to ECG data which demonstrated a mean bias of –0.13 (95% CI, –1.22–0.96). This study demonstrates cPPG can be a useful tool in the remote monitoring of patients and has demonstrated accuracy for HR. However, further research is needed into the clinical applications of this method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bautista et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: