ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of off-the-shelf wearable for ambulatory clinical event monitoring and patient localization in hospital settings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of ambulatory patients within hospital settings remains a major challenge in modern healthcare. This study presents an objective and quantitative evaluation of the feasibility of using off-the-shelf wearable devices for real-time clinical event monitoring and patient localization in hospital environments. We developed and assessed an integrated system combining two consumer-grade smartwatch models from a single manufacturer (Garmin Vivoactive 5 and Venu Sq 2) with smartphones to monitor heart rate and patient location. System performance was quantitatively evaluated in 10 healthy volunteers across multiple hospital scenarios. Key findings include: tachycardia detection delays with a median of 3 min 49 s compared to medical-grade electrocardiogram; indoor location accuracy with median errors of 3.9 m (longitude) and 3.0 m (latitude); a systematic altitude error of approximately 40 m; and linear staff response times increasing by 0.78 s per meter of distance. Signal loss was detected on average 3 min and 3 s after device removal, with one notification failure observed among 10 test conditions. These quantitative performance metrics represent the first observational assessment of integrating consumer-grade wearables into hospital monitoring systems designed to assist previously unmonitored patients during emergencies. Although current consumer devices have limitations compared with medical-grade equipment, this foundational evaluation demonstrates the feasibility of such systems and establishes performance benchmarks for scalable, low-cost patient monitoring solutions in modern healthcare settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.