Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40017610›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Biobeat monitor utilization in various healthcare settings: A systematic review.

Yifan Zhang, Jill Querney, Yamini Subramani, Kendra Naismith, Priyanka Singh, Lee-Anne Fochesato, Nida Fatima, Natasha Wood, Richard Malthaner, Mahesh Nagappa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yifan ZhangDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6663-4262
Jill QuerneyDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0366-3200
Yamini SubramaniDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2050-4324
Kendra NaismithDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1547-3786
Priyanka SinghDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4981-9586
Lee-Anne FochesatoDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7751-098X
Nida FatimaDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3834-9651
Natasha WoodDepartment of Nursing, London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0282-8189
Richard MalthanerDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, London Health Sciences Centre and St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3763-4838
Mahesh NagappaDepartment of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, St Joseph Health Care, Lawson Health Research Institute, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8036-3319

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ensuring accurate and continuous monitoring of patients' physiological parameters is paramount for evaluating their health status and guiding clinical decision-making. Technological advancements have the potential to significantly improve patient care and outcomes by offering a seamless continuum of healthcare experiences. Biobeat Technologies Ltd has pioneered a non-invasive wearable approach to acquiring advanced hemodynamic parameters, employing devices such as the BB-613WP wrist monitor and the BB-613P chest patch. Biobeat devices have been applicable across many clinical settings, as substantiated by a growing body of research. This systematic review endeavours to comprehensively consolidate the evidence regarding using Biobeat monitors across various clinical scenarios. Methods: From 2016 to 2024, a thorough literature search was conducted across multiple databases. The inclusion criteria for selected studies comprised adult patients aged 18 years or older in any healthcare setting, employing Biobeat monitoring devices (wrist monitors and/or chest patches), reporting at least one outcome or finding, and presenting fully published original research studies, including randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies. The quality and risk of bias assessment for the studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and COSMIN scoring system. Results: Among 27 studies identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria, involving 4248 patients. These included 14 prospective observational studies and one retrospective cohort study; no randomized control trials were identified. Notably, eight studies were conducted in ambulatory settings, with 1 study focusing on patients undergoing labor and delivery. Additionally, three studies were carried out in general inpatient wards, 1 in a medical ICU and another in a cardiac surgery ICU (CSICU). Furthermore, 1 study presented results from 3 separate investigations- 2 in ambulatory settings and 1 in the CSICU. Across all studies, Biobeat devices were consistently utilized, with each study reporting positive outcomes associated with their use. Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that Biobeat's non-invasive wearable devices have been effectively utilized across various clinical settings, consistently contributing to positive patient outcomes. The versatility and reliability of these devices highlight their potential to enhance patient care and support clinical decision-making, warranting further research to explore their broader applications.

Indexed as

Biobeatcontinuous monitoringdigital healthnoninvasive monitoringphotoplethysmographyremote monitoringwearable monitoring

Identifiers

PMID40017610
PMCPMC11866379

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.