Key result
The real-time heart rate measurements using the electronic stethoscope system differed from manual measurements by only 2-5%, with a delay of 1.7 to 2 seconds.
Why the study?
More accurate stethoscope measurements are needed to diagnose heart problems earlier, monitor patients, and provide initial clinical data for physicians.
Does a low-cost electronic stethoscope with a LabVIEW interface accurately detect real-time heart rate compared to manual measurement?
Does a low-cost electronic stethoscope with a LabVIEW interface accurately detect real-time heart rate compared to manual measurement?
Effect estimate: 2-5% difference
A low-cost electronic stethoscope prototype utilizing a 4th-order Butterworth filter and LabVIEW interface can detect real-time heart rate with a 2-5% error margin compared to manual measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May facilitate low-cost real-time monitoring; leaves open clinical validation in larger cohorts.
Oktivasari et al. (2020) studied Healthy volunteers (n=8). Electronic stethoscope with LabVIEW vs. Manual measurement was evaluated on Difference in Beats Per Minute (BPM) compared to manual measurement (2-5% difference). The real-time heart rate measurements using the electronic stethoscope system differed from manual measurements by only 2-5%, with a delay of 1.7 to 2 seconds.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: