Crizotinib Untruths You've Been Told About

Patients were monitored for approximately 2?h. Bland and Altman plots for the data from both groups are presented in figures 2?2�C4 and table 1. Individual recordings are presented in the online supplementary appendix. Table?1 Proportions of data from the wireless digital patch during continuous monitoring over a 2?h period; these data largely reflect the patch algorithm rejecting data that did not pass the internal quality assurance step Figure?2 Comparison of heart and respiratory rate data between the wireless, digital patch monitoring system and the reference bedside monitor during a 2?h monitoring period in patients who had undergone elective surgery (group 1 patients). Figure?3 Comparison of heart and respiratory rate data between the wireless, digital patch monitoring system and the reference bedside Non-specific serine/threonine protein kinase monitor during a 2?h monitoring period in patients with low voltage/variable QRS morphology (A) and ROCK activity patients with atrial ... Figure?4 Comparison of heart and respiratory rate data between the wireless, digital patch monitoring system and the reference bedside monitor during a 2?h monitoring period in patients with a high body mass index (>30?kg/m2; A) and patients ... In general, good agreement was seen between measurements recorded with the wireless, digital patch system and those obtained with the reference bedside monitor. Group 1 patients Twenty patients were recruited (13 male, mean (SD) age 49 (��16) years). Bland and Altman plots (figure 2) showed a mean difference in HR of ?0.5?bpm between the digital patch and the bedside monitor, with limits of agreement of ��3.47?bpm; 98.6% of potentially available data were actually available (table 1). For RR, the mean difference was 0.4?brpm, with limits of agreement of ��6.7?brpm (figure 2); selleck kinase inhibitor 64% of potentially available data were actually available (table 1). Correlation coefficients were 0.99 (p