Evaluation of Performance, Usability, and Reliability of a Novel Device for Continuous Collection of Physiological Data

January 22, 2019 updated by: MC10 Inc.

A Study to Evaluate the Performance, Usability, and Reliability of a Novel Device for Continuous Collection of Physiological Data in Healthcare and Remote Settings

Study objective: The primary objective of the clinical investigation is to evaluate the accuracy of BioStamp nPoint system algorithm measurements.

Study design: A single-site, non-significant risk, open-label, prospective non-randomized clinical investigation designed to validate the accuracy of the various physiological parameters that the Wearable Sensor Patches acquire and the system processes.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

30

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Ohio
      • Cincinnati, Ohio, United States, 45212
        • CTI Clinical Research Center

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 99 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Male or female volunteers, at least 18 years of age at the time of screening visit;
  2. Fluent in English;
  3. The subject is willing to comply with the protocol specified evaluations;
  4. Subject is willing and cognitively able to sign informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Pregnancy;
  2. Positive urine drug screen
  3. History of active (clinically significant) skin disorders;
  4. History of allergic response to silicones or adhesives;
  5. Subjects with electronic implants of any kind (e.g. pacemaker)
  6. History of sleep disorders or self-reported insomnia or other sleep conditions;
  7. Broken, damaged or irritated skin or rashes near the sensor application sites;
  8. Subjects that are MC10 employees or shareholders, or a spouse or child of an MC10 employee or shareholder;
  9. Subjects who are physically or cognitively unable to normally perform activities of daily living, assessed at the discretion of the investigator.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Other
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: Single Arm

This single arm consists of all subjects which will interact with the device under investigation as well as comparator devices.

This includes the Physiological signal monitor intervention, Heart rate and heart rate variability comparison device intervention, Respiration rate comparison device intervention, and Activity classification intervention.

Wireless remote monitoring system intended for use by researchers and healthcare professionals for continuous collection of physiological data in home and healthcare settings.
FDA cleared reference device that monitors heart rate and heart rate variability in subjects
FDA cleared reference device that monitors respiration rate in subjects
Visual annotation of subject posture and other activities used for reference

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Accuracy of Heart Rate Measured in Beats Per Minute Compared to Reference Device
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
Heart rate as measured by the subject device in beats per minute will be compared to the reference device. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between measurements from each device is presented.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Heart Rate Variability Measured by Root Mean Square of Successive Differences (HRV RMSSD) Compared to the Reference Device
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
Heart Rate Variability RMSSD is measured by the subject device determined by root mean square of successive differences in neighboring RR intervals and will be compared to the reference device. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between measurements from each device is presented.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Heart Rate Variability Measured by Low Frequency Content to High Frequency Content Ratio (HRV Ratio) Compared to the Reference Device
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
HRV Ratio as measured by the subject device determined by low frequency content to high frequency content ratio (HRV Ratio) in beats per minute will be compared to the reference device. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between measurements from each device is presented.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Respiration Rate Measured in Breaths Per Minute Compared to the Reference Device
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
Respiration rate as measured by the subject device in breaths per minute will be compared to the reference device. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between measurements from each device is presented.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Activity Classification as Compared to Visual Annotation
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
The device under test will classify a subjects activity into sleeping, standing, sitting, lying, walking and other activities as the subject performs various predefined activities, which are annotated by an observer. The device's Activity Classification will be compared to the observer's annotation. The percentage of correct classifications by the device against indicated visual observation is presented. The percent correct is not a per subject average, but is the percentage of all activity classifications which were correct when compared to ground truth observation.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Step Count Compared to an Observer's Manual Count
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
The number of steps reported by the device under test during a 6 minute walk test will be compared to an observer's manual count of the number of steps taken.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Sleep Onset Time (Hours, Minutes, and Seconds), Sleep Wake Time (Hours, Minutes, and Seconds) as Compared to an Observer's Visual Annotation
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
Sleep onset and wake times as reported by the device under test will be compared to an observer's visual annotation of the sleep onset and wake times. The Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between times as indicated by the device and observed times is presented.
2 days after informed consent
Accuracy of Posture Classification as Compared to Visual Annotation
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
The device under test will classify a subjects activity into sleep posture, standing posture, and sitting posture as the subject performs various predefined activities, which are annotated by an observer. The device's Posture Classification will be compared to the observer's annotation. The percentage of correct classifications by the device against indicated visual observation is presented. The percent correct is not a per subject average, but is the percentage of all posture classifications which were correct when compared to ground truth observation.
2 days after informed consent
Number of Sensors That Remained Sufficiently Adhered to Subjects for 24 Hours as Assessed by a 5 Point Scale
Time Frame: 2 days after informed consent
The level of sensor adhesion will be assessed by a 5 point scale (0- sensor is greater than or equal to 90% of sensor adhered, 4-sensor completely detached from subject). Sensors receiving scores of 0 and 1 will be determined to have acceptable adhesion, while scores of 2, 3, and 4 will be considered unacceptable adhesion. The percentage of sensors which had acceptable adhesion at sensor removal is presented.
2 days after informed consent

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

July 31, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

August 25, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

August 30, 2017

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 16, 2017

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 17, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

August 22, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

January 25, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 22, 2019

Last Verified

January 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • MC10-PTL-103

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

Yes

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Healthy Normals

Clinical Trials on Physiological signal monitor

Subscribe