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 (SpO(2)). 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 SpO(2).