# Validation of wearable vital signs monitoring: A comparison with conventional bedside patient monitors

## TL;DR

This study compares wearable devices to traditional monitors for tracking vital signs and finds them highly accurate in clinical settings.

## Contribution

The study validates the accuracy of wearable devices for continuous vital signs monitoring in clinical environments.

## Key findings

- 94.2% of oxygen saturation, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse rate data points were within agreement limits.
- 92.3% of systolic blood pressure and 94.7% of heart rate and respiratory rate data points were within agreement limits.
- Strong agreement was found between wearable and traditional bedside monitoring systems.

## Abstract

This study aimed to assess how accurately mobile wearable devices could be used to monitor vital signs continuously in clinical settings by comparing their measurements with those from traditional bedside monitors.

Data collected from Mindray's mWear wearable device were compared against measurements from the BeneVision N15 traditional bedside monitoring system. A total of 208 paired datasets, including blood pressure, oxygen saturation, heart rate, and respiratory rate, were collected from 16 healthy volunteers in a clinical setting. Bland-Altman analysis was applied to assess agreement between the two devices.

The analysis showed that 94.2% of the data variance points for oxygen saturation, diastolic blood pressure, and pulse rate fell within the limits of agreement. For systolic blood pressure, 92.3% of the data variance points were within limits, while 94.7% of the heart rate and respiratory rate data points were also within agreement limits.

There was a strong agreement between the wearable mWear device and the traditional bedside patient monitoring system. This study supports the accuracy and reliability of wearable devices for continuous vital signs monitoring. These results encourage the wider use and ongoing improvement of wearable technology in clinical practice.