Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Feb;36(1):41-54.
doi: 10.1007/s10877-021-00734-9. Epub 2021 Jul 9.

Effectiveness of consumer-grade contactless vital signs monitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chi Pham #  1   2 , Khashayar Poorzargar #  1   2 , Mahesh Nagappa  3 , Aparna Saripella  1 , Matteo Parotto  4 , Marina Englesakis  5 , Kang Lee  6 , Frances Chung  7   8
Affiliations
Review

Effectiveness of consumer-grade contactless vital signs monitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chi Pham et al. J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Feb.

Abstract

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the effectiveness of contactless vital sign monitors that utilize a consumer-friendly camera versus medical grade instruments. A multiple database search was conducted from inception to September 2020. Inclusion criteria were as follows: studies that used a consumer-grade camera (smartphone/webcam) to examine contactless vital signs in adults; evaluated the non-contact device against a reference medical device; and used the participants' face for measurement. Twenty-six studies were included in the review of which 16 were included in Pearson's correlation and 14 studies were included in the Bland-Altman meta-analysis. Twenty-two studies measured heart rate (HR) (92%), three measured blood pressure (BP) (12%), and respiratory rate (RR) (12%). No study examined blood oxygen saturation (SpO2). Most studies had a small sample size (≤ 30 participants) and were performed in a laboratory setting. Our meta-analysis found that consumer-grade contactless vital sign monitors were accurate in comparison to a medical device in measuring HR. Current contactless monitors have limitations such as motion, poor lighting, and lack of automatic face tracking. Currently available consumer-friendly contactless monitors measure HR accurately compared to standard medical devices. More studies are needed to assess the accuracy of contactless BP and RR monitors. Implementation of contactless vital sign monitors for clinical use will require validation in a larger population, in a clinical setting, and expanded to encompass other vital signs including BP, RR, and SpO2.

Keywords: Blood pressure; Camera; Contactless monitors; Heart rate; Photoplethysmography; Vital signs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Frances Chung: Reports research support from University Health Network Foundation, Up-to-date royalties, consultant to Takeda Pharma, STOP-Bang proprietary to University Health Network. All other authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram. Flow diagram of the study selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot of Pearson’s correlation coefficients of heart rate measurements at rest in contactless vital signs monitor compared to a reference medical device. Forest plot of random-effects meta-analysis on Pearson’s values showing pooled weighted correlation coefficient of 0.962 (95% CI 0.905 to 0.985; p value < 0.00) (Predictive Intervals: -0.0839 to 0.99). The overall inter-study heterogeneity (I2) is 93%, while between-study variance is (Tau2) 0.873 (Tau = 0.934)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of standard error of the mean of heart rate measurements at rest in contactless vital signs monitor compared to a reference medical device. Forest plot of pooled estimate of the mean difference between non-contact and standard method for HR detection was 0.36, with the pooled 95% confidence interval ranging from − 1.22 to 1.95
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Hollander JE, Carr BG. Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):1679–1681. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2003539. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wosik J, Fudim M, Cameron B, Gellad ZF, Cho A, Phinney D, et al. Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(6):957–962. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa067. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorson S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(6):661–671. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harford M, Catherall J, Gerry S, Young JD, Watkinson P. Availability and performance of image-based, non-contact methods of monitoring heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation: a systematic review. Physiol Meas. 2019;40(6):06. doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/ab1f1d. - DOI - PubMed
  NODES
twitter 2