{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04029692470837752, 'fraction_numerical': 0.036585365853658534, 'mean_word_length': 5.106796116504855, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 1, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Performance of Digital Monitoring Devices for Oxygen Saturation and Respiratory Rate in COPD: A Systematic Review

Abstract Healthcare access and delivery for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who live in remote areas or who are susceptible to contracting communicable diseases, such as COVID-19, may be a challenge. Telehealth and remote monitoring devices can be used to overcome this issue. However, the accuracy of these devices must be ensured before forming healthcare decisions based on their outcomes. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to synthesize the evidence on the reliability, validity and responsiveness of digital devices used for tracking oxygen saturation (SpO2) and/or respiratory rate (RR) in individuals with COPD, in remote settings. Three electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (1996 to October 8, 2020), EMBASE (1996 to October 8, 2020) and CINAHL (1998 to October 8, 2020). Studies were included if they aimed to evaluate one or more measurement properties of a digital device measuring SpO2 or RR in individuals with COPD. Six-hundred and twenty-five articles were identified and after screening, 7 studies matched the inclusion criteria; covering 11 devices measuring SpO2 and/or RR. Studies reported on the reliability (n = 1), convergent validity (n = 1), concurrent validity (n = 2) and predictive validity (n = 2) of SpO2 devices and on the convergent validity (n = 1), concurrent validity (n = 1) and predictive validity (n = 1) of RR devices. SpO2 and RR devices were valid when compared against other respiration monitoring devices but were not precise in predicting exacerbation events. More well-designed measurement studies are needed to make firm conclusions about the accuracy of such devices. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2021.1945021 .