This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for Remote Monitoring Use In Cases Of Suspected COVID-19 (Coronavirus) (NCT04337489), a registered phase not stated study. The primary outcome is Deterioration Resulting in Healthcare Review.
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT04337489 |
| Phase | Phase not stated |
| Condition | Coronavirus |
| Allocation | Not Stated |
| Design model | Not Stated |
| Masking | Not Stated |
| Enrollment | 15 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | n/a |
| Lead sponsor | Imperial College London |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
People with suspected COVID-19 staying in a designated location, such as a hotel. The registry record lists Coronavirus as the condition and reports enrollment of 15 participants. Further eligibility details are not reported in the registry record.
Intervention
The SensiumVitals wearable sensor. It measures heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature every 2 minutes, with measurements available for review by the clinical team looking after participants.
Comparator
The registry record does not describe a randomized comparison. Allocation is not stated, and the record cautions that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. A specific comparator is not reported in the registry record.
Primary question
Can wearable sensors detect clinical deterioration resulting in healthcare review, such as a GP telephone consultation, in people with suspected COVID-19? The primary outcome counts alerts generated over a timeframe of 1 year.
3. Trial Design
The registry record describes the REMOTE-COVID Trial, sponsored by Imperial College London. It lists the study as completed, with a start date of 2020-07-28 and a primary completion date of 2021-03-26. Enrollment was 15. The intervention is the SensiumVitals wearable sensor, classified in the record as a device.
The study’s stated aim was to assess whether deterioration among participants with suspected coronavirus in a designated location could be identified sooner by wearing the sensor. The sensor measures heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature every 2 minutes, and the clinical team looking after participants can review those measurements. The primary outcome concerns detection of deterioration resulting in healthcare review. Hospitalisation is listed as a secondary outcome.
The record does not describe a randomized comparison. Allocation is not stated, and it cautions that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. As a result, the record does not establish a controlled comparison for estimating the effect of sensor monitoring against an otherwise comparable alternative. Details of any comparator, allocation process, and treatment of participants across study groups are not reported in the registry record.
The registry lists two outcome measures, but no analysis records. The primary outcome’s result is not reported in the registry record. The record also does not give participant flow, the number assessed for each outcome, or the characteristics of the enrolled participants. Those omissions limit what can be concluded about how monitoring was implemented and how representative the enrolled group was.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Overall Study
| Stage | Wearable Sensor |
|---|---|
| STARTED | 15 |
| COMPLETED | 14 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 1 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | Wearable Sensor |
|---|---|
| Withdrawal by Subject | 1 |
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
| Characteristic | Unit | Wearable Sensor |
|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 14 | |
| Age, Continuous | years | 34.9 (SD 11) |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 7 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 7 |
| Race and Ethnicity Not Collected | Participants | — |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as Deterioration Resulting in Healthcare Review, measured over 1 year.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | Number |
| Measure of spread | not applicable |
| Unit | alerts generated |
| Endpoint classification | not reduced to a single comparison |
The primary endpoint is titled “Deterioration Resulting in Healthcare Review.” It measures the number of alerts generated by wearable sensors that indicate clinical deterioration and result in healthcare review, with a GP telephone consultation given as an example. The stated timeframe is 1 year. The endpoint is therefore a count of alerts, rather than a direct measure of time to deterioration or a clinical outcome such as hospitalisation.
As a general statistical point, a count outcome can describe how often an event is recorded within a defined period. Here, the endpoint links a sensor alert to subsequent healthcare review, making it relevant to the study’s aim of identifying deterioration for clinical attention. However, an alert count alone does not show whether deterioration was detected earlier than it would otherwise have been, whether alerts correctly identified deterioration, or whether review changed subsequent care. Those questions require additional outcome definitions and comparisons.
The registry record does not report the observed number of alerts, the number of participants contributing to the endpoint, or an estimate of uncertainty. It also does not report criteria for defining deterioration or for deciding whether an alert resulted in healthcare review. Without those details and the endpoint result, the count’s magnitude and precision cannot be assessed.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The main interpretive constraint is that the registry record gives the primary outcome definition but not its observed result. It therefore does not show how many alerts led to healthcare review, how those alerts were distributed across participants, or how precisely the count was estimated. No effect estimate, confidence interval, or analysis result is reported in the registry record. The study’s stated aim can be described, but the posted information does not establish whether deterioration was identified sooner.
The study enrolled 15 participants, and the primary endpoint has a timeframe of 1 year. These details describe the study’s scale and the endpoint’s stated observation period; they do not substitute for outcome data. The record lists hospitalisation as a secondary outcome, but does not report a result for it. It also lists two outcome measures and no analysis records. Without posted outcome results, neither the primary endpoint nor the secondary outcome can be interpreted as evidence of an observed difference.
The record explicitly says this was not a randomized comparison, that allocation was not stated, and that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. Thus, even if group-level outcomes were available, a difference between groups would not automatically be attributable to the sensor. Differences could reflect participant characteristics, clinical decisions, monitoring arrangements, or other factors. The record does not give the information needed to examine those possibilities.
The count nature of the primary endpoint also matters. A count can vary with the number of participants monitored, the length of monitoring, and the process for generating and reviewing alerts. General statistical interpretation of a count would need to take its denominator and observation period into account, as well as variation between participants. The registry record does not report the participant-level counts or the analysis used to handle variation.
The safety listing records zero serious adverse events, zero other adverse events, and zero deaths in the Wearable Sensor group, with 14 participants at risk. Those are descriptive registry entries, not a controlled safety comparison. The enrollment total is 15, and the reason the safety listing has 14 participants at risk is not reported in the registry record. The safety figures should not be treated as proof that no risks occurred beyond the events recorded.
Overall, the record documents a completed monitoring study and its intended outcome, but the absence of posted outcome and analysis results prevents an assessment of the primary question. The lack of a like-for-like control comparison further limits causal interpretation.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
What does a count endpoint represent?
As a general statistical concept, a count endpoint records how many times an event occurs within a defined observation period. The primary outcome in this study is the number of alerts generated that result in healthcare review, over a timeframe of 1 year. A count is different from a proportion, which would require a defined denominator, and different from a time-to-event outcome, which records how long it takes for an event to occur.
For a count to be interpreted, it is useful to know how many participants contributed data, how long each participant was monitored, and whether repeated alerts could be recorded for one person. Those details help distinguish a larger number of alerts caused by more observation from a higher frequency of alerts during comparable observation. The registry record does not report participant-level counts, monitoring duration for each participant, or the rules for counting repeated alerts.
Why can variation between participants matter?
As a general matter, count outcomes may vary substantially from one participant to another. A simple count model may fit poorly if observed variability is greater than the model expects; this is called over-dispersion. When over-dispersion is present, methods that account for it can produce more appropriate uncertainty estimates. Whether over-dispersion was assessed or how the count was modelled is not reported in the registry record. No analysis results are listed, so the model’s assumptions and fit cannot be evaluated.
A count of alerts also combines several processes: a participant’s clinical state, the sensor’s measurements, the alert-generating rules, and the response of the healthcare team. This is a general consideration when interpreting such endpoints. The record says that the sensor measures heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature every 2 minutes and that the clinical team can review the measurements. It does not report alert thresholds, validation criteria, or the rules linking alerts to healthcare review. Those details are important for understanding what each counted alert represents.
What does a confidence interval add?
In general, a confidence interval expresses the uncertainty around an estimated quantity under a specified statistical method. It helps readers judge whether the observed value is estimated precisely or remains compatible with a wide range of values. A confidence interval is not reported in the registry record for the primary outcome. Nor does the record report the underlying count or an analysis estimate, so the precision of the primary result cannot be assessed.
For a comparison, an estimate and its uncertainty would also need to be interpreted in light of how participants were assigned or grouped. Random allocation can, in general, help balance factors that affect outcomes, while a nonrandomized comparison can be vulnerable to differences between groups. Here, the record states that there was no randomized comparison, allocation was not stated, and the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. It does not report an adjusted or unadjusted comparison, and no analysis records are listed.
What do the planning assumptions mean?
The registry record describes a sample-size planning illustration based on the observed effect, using a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between two arms, and a normal approximation. It says the effect to detect is a stated fraction of the observed effect. For time-to-event planning, the illustration concerns the total number of events; for other outcomes, it concerns participants per arm. These are planning assumptions, not evidence that the trial was designed or conducted with those assumptions. The record does not report a protocol sample-size justification, and the planning illustration is not observed power.
In general, sample-size calculations estimate the amount of information needed under specified assumptions. They do not establish that an observed effect is real, and they cannot replace outcome results. The registry record does not provide a primary outcome estimate alongside which the planning illustration could be interpreted. It also does not report a statistical analysis plan or analysis results.
How should the analysis record be read?
The registry lists no analysis records. This does not explain whether analyses were conducted outside the registry or whether results were unavailable for another reason; that information is not reported in the registry record. It does mean that the posted record does not offer an inferential result to evaluate. In general, a complete statistical interpretation would need the outcome definition, the analysis population, handling of missing observations, statistical model, estimate, and uncertainty. These details are not reported in the registry record.
10. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
Multiplicity arises when a study examines several outcomes, comparisons, or analyses. As a general statistical issue, testing many questions can increase the chance of finding an apparently notable result by chance if the analysis does not account for the number of tests. The registry record lists two outcome measures: the primary endpoint of alerts resulting in healthcare review and the secondary outcome of hospitalisation. It does not report an analysis plan or explain whether any adjustment for multiple testing was intended. With no analysis records, the treatment of multiplicity cannot be assessed.
Missing data can also affect interpretation. If outcome information is unavailable for some participants, the estimate may depend on which participants contributed data and why other observations were missing. General approaches include describing missingness and specifying how it is handled in the analysis. The registry record does not report missing-data amounts, reasons for missingness, or an approach to handling missing observations.
The analysis population is not described. The record reports enrollment of 15 participants and lists 14 participants at risk in the Wearable Sensor safety group, but it does not explain the difference or identify which participants contributed to each outcome. It does not state whether outcome analyses included all enrolled participants, only those with available data, or another defined group. No analysis records are listed. Consequently, the population underlying any outcome estimate cannot be determined from the registry record.
These absences do not establish that multiplicity or missing data affected the study’s findings; the findings and analysis details are not reported in the registry record. They do mean that the robustness and scope of any statistical conclusion cannot be judged from the posted information.
11. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wearable Sensor | 0 | 14 | 0.0% |
Deaths
| Arm | Deaths (participants affected of at risk) |
|---|---|
| Wearable Sensor | 0 of 14 |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 5% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| Wearable Sensor | 0 of 14 |
The registry record lists a Wearable Sensor safety group with 14 participants at risk. It records zero serious adverse events, zero other adverse events, and zero deaths. No serious adverse event terms are listed. These entries describe what the registry reports for that group; they are not a comparison with another group.
A zero recorded event count does not by itself establish that the sensor has no risks. Interpretation depends on how adverse events were defined, collected, reviewed, and attributed, as well as the amount of observation. Those details are not reported in the registry record. The record also does not state why 14 participants were at risk when overall enrollment was 15, or whether all participants had the same safety observation period.
Because the study does not have a reported randomized, like-for-like control comparison, these safety figures cannot establish whether event occurrence differed from an alternative monitoring approach. They should be read as registry-reported counts for the listed group, not as a comparative safety estimate.
12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The registry record establishes that a completed study examined wearable monitoring among people with suspected COVID-19 in a designated location. It describes a sensor measuring heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature every 2 minutes, and defines the primary outcome as alerts for deterioration that resulted in healthcare review during a timeframe of 1 year. It also records hospitalisation as a secondary outcome and reports enrollment of 15 participants.
Those details describe the study question and its setup; they do not answer whether the sensor identified deterioration sooner. The primary outcome count, the hospitalisation result, and any estimates of uncertainty are not reported in the registry record. There are no analysis records. Without those results, the magnitude, direction, and precision of any observed outcome cannot be assessed.
The record also does not support a causal comparison. It states that this was not a randomized comparison, allocation was not stated, and the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. Any difference between non-comparable groups, if one were reported, could not be attributed to the sensor on that basis alone. The record does not provide the information needed to assess differences in participant characteristics, exposure to monitoring, or clinical management.
The safety listing records no serious events, other events, or deaths among 14 participants at risk in the Wearable Sensor group. These figures are descriptive and do not establish comparative safety. The reason the safety count differs from enrollment is not reported in the registry record.
In general, a study’s stated objective, an outcome definition, and a statistical result are distinct things. The record gives the objective and endpoint definition, but not the outcome result or analysis. The appropriate reading is therefore limited: the study was designed to examine whether sensor alerts could support healthcare review, while the posted record does not provide enough result information to determine what was observed.
13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
This study raises a useful statistical question about how continuous or frequent sensor measurements become clinically meaningful outcomes. The device measures heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature every 2 minutes, while the primary endpoint counts alerts that result in healthcare review. Those are not identical quantities. The path from measurement to alert to review determines what the endpoint captures, and the registry record does not report the alert rules or the detailed criteria for counting an alert as leading to review.
There is also an important distinction between detecting a signal and showing that detection occurred sooner. An alert count can describe workload or recorded events, but a claim about earlier identification would require a suitable time-based comparison and information about what would have happened under an alternative approach. The record does not report such a randomized comparison or a result addressing time to detection. This makes the design and endpoint interpretation central to understanding the study.
The study is also a reminder that a completed status does not ensure that outcome estimates and analyses are available in a registry record. Here, enrollment and outcome definitions are reported, but the primary result and analysis records are not. Without results and their uncertainty, readers cannot judge the evidence’s precision or distinguish a stable pattern from substantial uncertainty.
Finally, the explicit warning that the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison matters for causal reasoning. Even when an outcome difference is available, comparison groups need to be sufficiently comparable for that difference to support an effect interpretation. The record’s design limitation and the absence of posted results together make clear why endpoint definition, comparison structure, and transparent analysis reporting all matter statistically.
14. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
Several limitations are specific to the information reported for this study. First, the registry record does not report the observed primary outcome count, a hospitalisation result, or any analysis. Although the study is marked completed, the posted information therefore does not allow readers to assess the main outcome or its precision.
Second, the record states that the study was not a randomized comparison, allocation was not stated, and the arms are not a like-for-like control comparison. This limits the ability to interpret any between-group difference causally. Details of any comparator and the allocation process are not reported in the registry record.
Third, key endpoint details are absent. The registry defines the primary outcome as alerts resulting in healthcare review, but does not report alert criteria, repeat-alert counting rules, participant-level counts, or how much monitoring each participant received. These details affect interpretation of a count outcome. The reason the safety group lists 14 participants at risk while enrollment was 15 is also not reported in the registry record.
Finally, the record does not report eligibility criteria in detail, participant characteristics, missing-data information, analysis populations, or a statistical analysis plan. It lists two outcome measures but no analysis records, and does not explain how multiplicity or missing observations were handled. These omissions restrict assessment of representativeness, analytic choices, and robustness. They should not be interpreted as evidence that particular problems occurred; the relevant details are simply not reported in the registry record.
15. Related Tutorials
16. Related Statistical Calculators
17. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: Remote Monitoring Use In Cases Of Suspected COVID-19 (Coronavirus) — NCT04337489.
- Registry record last updated 2024-10-08; status last verified 2024-09.
- Results first posted 2024-10-08.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
18. Record Summary
The REMOTE-COVID Trial, sponsored by Imperial College London, is listed as completed. Its start date was 2020-07-28, its primary completion date was 2021-03-26, and enrollment was 15. The study concerned suspected coronavirus in a designated location and evaluated the SensiumVitals wearable sensor, which measures heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature every 2 minutes.
The primary outcome was the number of alerts for deterioration resulting in healthcare review over a timeframe of 1 year. Hospitalisation was listed as a secondary outcome. The registry record states that this was not a randomized comparison, that allocation was not stated, and that the arms were not a like-for-like control comparison.
The primary and secondary outcome results are not reported in the registry record, and no analysis records are listed. The safety record lists 14 participants at risk in the Wearable Sensor group, with zero serious adverse events, zero other adverse events, and zero deaths.