Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVE: Over the last 15 years, developments in camera technology have coincided with increased availability and affordability. This has led to an increasing interest in using these technologies in healthcare settings. Image-based monitoring methods potentially allow multiple vital signs to be measured concurrently using a non-contact sensor. We have undertaken a systematic review of the current availability and performance of these monitoring methods. APPROACH: A multiple database search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, OpenGrey, IEEE Xplore Library and ACM Digital Library to July 2018. We included studies comparing image-based heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation and blood pressure monitoring methods against one or more validated reference device(s). Each included study was assessed using the modified GRRAS criteria for reporting bias. MAIN RESULTS: Of 30 279 identified studies, 161 were included in the final analysis. Twenty studies (20/161, 12%) were carried out on patients in clinical settings, while the remainder were conducted in academic settings using healthy volunteer populations. The 18-40 age group was best represented across the identified studies. One hundred and twenty studies (120/161, 75%) estimated heart rate, followed by 62 studies (62/161, 39%) estimating respiratory rate. Fewer studies focused on oxygen saturation (11/161, 7%) or blood pressure (6/161, 4%) estimation. Fifty-one heart rate studies (51/120, 43%) and 24 respiratory rate studies (24/62, 39%) used Bland-Altman analysis to report their results. Of the heart rate studies, 28 studies (28/51, 55%) showed agreement within industry standards of [Formula: see text]5 beats per minute. Only two studies achieved this within clinical settings. Of the respiratory rate studies, 13 studies (13/24, 54%) showed agreement within industry standards of [Formula: see text]3 breaths per minute, but only one study achieved this in a clinical setting. Statistical analysis was heterogeneous across studies with frequent inappropriate use of correlation. The majority of studies (99/161, 61%) monitored subjects for under 5 min. Three studies (3/161, 2%) monitored subjects for over 60 min, all of which were conducted in hospital settings. SIGNIFICANCE: Heart rate and respiratory rate monitoring using video images is currently possible and performs within clinically acceptable limits under experimental conditions. Camera-derived estimates were less accurate in the proportion of studies conducted in clinical settings. We would encourage thorough reporting of the population studied, details of clinically relevant aspects of methodology, and the use of appropriate statistical methods in future studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42016029167 Protocol: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0615-3.

Original publication

DOI

10.1088/1361-6579/ab1f1d

Type

Journal article

Journal

Physiol Meas

Publication Date

03/07/2019

Volume

40