Why the study?
Remote patient monitoring is needed for resource limitations and infection control, but current sensors require physical contact that can cause discomfort or non-adherence.
Does a novel contact-free optical system accurately measure heart and respiratory rate compared to a standard bedside monitor?
Population
115 patients who completed study procedures
Comparison
Contact-free optical system (Gili Pro BioSensor) vs standard reference bed-side monitor (Mindray)
Authors
Loading...
May enable comfortable remote vital-sign monitoring; leaves open larger validation before clinical adoption.
Does a novel contact-free optical system accurately measure heart and respiratory rate compared to a standard bedside monitor?
A novel contact-free optical system demonstrated over 99% accuracy in detecting heart and respiratory rate compared to standard bedside monitors.
Havakuk et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: