4.7 Review

Photoplethysmograhic sensors, potential and limitations: Is it time for regulation? A comprehensive review

期刊

MEASUREMENT
卷 218, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.113150

关键词

Photoplethysmography (PPG); Optical sensors; Heart Rate (HR); Sources of inaccuracy; Motion artifacts; Standardization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wearable monitoring systems are expected to shift healthcare out of inpatient settings. Photoplethysmography (PPG) is integrated into wrist-worn commercial products, offering advantages in cost and size. However, PPG-based devices are influenced by various factors, hindering objective characterization. Lack of standardization for data collection and processing limits the full potential of this technology. This review aims to summarize influencing parameters of PPG and propose guidelines for standardization.
Healthcare is expected to increasingly shift care out of inpatient settings thanks to wearable monitoring systems. Photoplethysmography (PPG) is an optical technique already integrated into wrist-worn commercial products which presents significant advantages in terms of cost and dimensions. PPG-based devices, despite their ability to detect multiple cardiovascular parameters, are affected by several influencing conditions that depend both on technological or environmental variables, and on intra-and inter-subject variability that influences the whole measurement chain and reliability, hindering an objective characterization of PPG devices. Plus, the lack of standardization for data collection and processing leads to the lack of generalizability and reproducibility of results, preventing the full exploitation of the potential prognostic capacity of this technology. Thus, this review aims not only to summarize the main influencing parameters of PPG technology, which should be addressed when testing the sensor, but also to suggest tentative guidelines for a possible future standardization initiative.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据