Key result
Contactless sleep monitoring technologies accurately estimated heart rate (mean absolute error <2.12 bpm) and breathing rate (mean absolute error ≤1.6 cycles/min) compared to polysomnography.
Why the study?
Contactless technologies embedded in bedrooms could seamlessly monitor vital signs during sleep, but need evaluation against gold-standard measures in relevant populations.
Do contactless technologies accurately measure heart rate and breathing rate compared to polysomnography in community-dwelling older adults?
Population
35 community-dwelling older adults aged between 65 and 83 years
Comparison
Three contactless monitoring technologies vs polysomnography
Design
Digital health technology evaluation study
Authors
Loading...
May enable seamless nocturnal vital sign monitoring in older adults; hypothesis-generating pending gold-standard validation.
Observational (n=35)
Do contactless technologies accurately measure heart rate and breathing rate compared to polysomnography in community-dwelling older adults?
Contactless technologies, including undermattress trackers and bedside radar, provide accurate and unintrusive monitoring of heart rate, breathing rate, and sleep apnea in older adults compared to gold-standard polysomnography.
Ravindran et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Aging and sleep monitoring (n=35). Contactless sleep monitoring technologies (Withings Sleep Analyzer, Emfit QS, Somnofy) vs. Clinical polysomnography (PSG) was evaluated on Accuracy of heart rate and breathing rate measurements. Contactless sleep monitoring technologies accurately estimated heart rate (mean absolute error <2.12 bpm) and breathing rate (mean absolute error ≤1.6 cycles/min) compared to polysomnography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: