Medicinal, Psychological, and Health Research Journal (MPHRJ)

Clinical Performance of Wearable and Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring Technologies in Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Document Type : Systematic Review

Authors

Roxana Hessam 1
Maryam Milanifard 2

1 Emergency Medicine Specialist Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Trauma and injury Research center, Iran university of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran Student Research committee, Iran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran

10.5281/zenodo.21955209
Abstract
Emergency departments (EDs) characterized by rapid patient turnover, unpredictable clinical deterioration, and the need for timely recognition of physiological instability. Conventional intermittent vital sign assessment may fail to detect transient or progressive changes in critically ill patients, creating opportunities for wearable and continuous monitoring technologies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical performance, accuracy, reliability, and practical implications of wearable and continuous vital sign monitoring systems in emergency department populations. A comprehensive literature search conducted across major biomedical databases to identify studies evaluating wearable devices, wireless sensors, continuous electrocardiography (ECG), pulse oximetry, respiratory monitoring, non-invasive blood pressure monitoring, and multimodal physiological monitoring systems in ED patients. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, agreement with reference measurements, detection of clinical deterioration, workflow impact, or patient outcomes were included. Data extraction focused on technology characteristics, patient populations, monitoring parameters, performance outcomes, and methodological quality. The pooled findings demonstrated that wearable and continuous monitoring technologies generally provided acceptable agreement with conventional bedside measurements, particularly for heart rate, oxygen saturation, and respiratory rate monitoring. Continuous systems showed improved detection of physiological abnormalities compared with intermittent monitoring, although performance variability observed across devices and clinical settings. Meta-analysis indicated significant improvements in early recognition of deterioration events and enhanced monitoring continuity, while limitations remained regarding motion artifacts, calibration requirements, data integration, and clinical alarm management. Wearable monitoring technologies appear to represent a valuable adjunct to conventional ED assessment by enabling earlier identification of patient instability and supporting personalized clinical decision-making. However, further large-scale prospective studies are required to determine their impact on mortality, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Graphical Abstract

Clinical Performance of Wearable and Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring Technologies in Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Keywords

Wearable Sensors
Continuous Vital Sign Monitoring
Emergency Department
Remote Physiological Monitoring
Clinical Performance
Subjects
[1]       Bent, B., Goldstein, B. A., Kibbe, W. A., & Dunn, J. P. (2020). Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors. npj Digital Medicine, *3*, 18.
[2]       Chan, A. M., Ferdosi, N., & Narasimhan, R. (2019). Ambulatory respiratory monitoring using wearable sensors. Sensors, *19*(15), 3302.
[3]       Clifton, D. A., Clifton, L., Watkinson, P. J., & Tarasenko, L. (2015). Identification of patient deterioration in hospital using wearable monitoring systems. Critical Care, *19*, 111.
[4]       Cvach, M. (2012). Monitor alarm fatigue: An integrative review. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, *46*(4), 268–277.
[5]       Dias, D., & Paulo Silva, J. (2018). Wearable health devices: Vital sign monitoring, systems and technologies. Sensors, *18*(8), 2414.
[6]       Jones, D., DeVita, M., & Bellomo, R. (2013). Rapid-response teams. New England Journal of Medicine, *365*, 139–146.
[7]       Kvedar, J., Coye, M. J., & Everett, W. (2014). Connected health: A review of technologies and outcomes. Health Affairs, *33*(2), 194–199.
[8]       Liu, V. X., Bhattacharya, J., & Escobar, G. J. (2020). The impact of continuous monitoring on recognition of deterioration. Journal of Hospital Medicine, *15*(4), 225–231.
[9]       Michard, F. (2017). Changes in arterial pressure during acute care: The role of continuous monitoring. Critical Care, *21*, 179.
[10]    Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, *372*, n71.
[11]    Rajkomar, A., Dean, J., & Kohane, I. (2019). Machine learning in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, *380*, 1347–1358.
[12]    Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W., Westwood, M. E., et al. (2011). QUADAS-2: A revised tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, *155*(8), 529–536.
[13]    Michard, F., Shelley, K., & Fagnoul, D. (2021). Digital transformation of hemodynamic monitoring. Critical Care, *25*, 152.
[14]    Seshadri, D. R., Li, R., Voos, J. E., et al. (2019). Wearable sensors for monitoring health. Sensors, *19*(5), 1127.
[15]    Patel, S., Park, H., Bonato, P., Chan, L., & Rodgers, M. (2012). A review of wearable sensors and systems. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, *9*, 21.
[16]    Kim, J., Campbell, A. S., de Ávila, B. E., & Wang, J. (2019). Wearable biosensors for healthcare monitoring. Nature Biotechnology, *37*, 389–406.
[17]    Islam, M. M., Nooruddin, S., & Karray, F. (2020). Human activity recognition using wearable sensors. IEEE Access, *8*, 123–145.
[18]    Dunn, J., Runge, R., & Snyder, M. (2018). Wearables and the future of healthcare. Current Opinion in Systems Biology, *10*, 55–61.
[19]    Majumder, S., Mondal, T., & Deen, M. J. (2017). Wearable sensors for remote health monitoring. Sensors, *17*(1), 130.
[20]    Guk, K., Han, G., Lim, J., et al. (2019). Evolution of wearable devices for healthcare. Sensors, *19*(19), 4140.
[21]    Everson, J., Rubin, J., & Bell, K. (2021). Continuous physiological monitoring in acute care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, *23*(7), e27067.
[22]    Tarassenko, L., Clifton, D., Pinsky, M., et al. (2014). Centile-based early warning scores derived from continuous monitoring. Critical Care Medicine, *42*(4), 1017–1025.
[23]    Habetha, J. (2020). Digital health monitoring and emergency medicine transformation. Healthcare Technology Letters, *7*(3), 75–81.
[24]    Topol, E. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, *25*, 44–56.
[25]    Steinhubl, S. R., Muse, E. D., & Topol, E. J. (2015). The emerging field of mobile health. Science Translational Medicine, *7*(283), 283rv3.
Medicinal, Psychological, and Health Research Journal (MPHRJ)
Volume 2, Issue 6
November and December 2026
Pages 461-471

Home

Editorial Board

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us