Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30035250›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2018

A SURVEY OF SMARTWATCHES IN REMOTE HEALTH MONITORING.

Christine E King, Majid Sarrafzadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Towards Wearable Augmented Reality in Healthcare: A Comparative Survey and Analysis of Head-Mounted Displays.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The Metaverse: A New Challenge for the Healthcare System: A Scoping Review.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Donating Health Data to Research: Influential Characteristics of Individuals Engaging in Self-Tracking.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  20. Accident & Emergency Informatics and One Digital Health.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christine E KingCenter for SMART Health, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA.
Majid SarrafzadehCenter for SMART Health, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA.

Funding

The Los Angeles PRISMS Center: The Biomedical REAl-Time Health Evaluation (BREATHE) PlatformU54EB022002 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI BUI, ALEX · 2015 to 2016
$6.1M
NIBIB NIH HHS U54 EB022002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review classifies smartwatch-based healthcare applications in the literature according to their application and summarizes what has led to feasible systems. To this end, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed smartwatch studies related to healthcare by searching PubMed, EBSCOHost, Springer, Elsevier, Pro-Quest, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library databases to find articles between 1998 and 2016. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a smartwatch was used, (2) the study was related to a healthcare application, (3) the study was a randomized controlled trial or pilot study, and (4) the study included human participant testing. Each article was evaluated in terms of its application, population type, setting, study size, study type, and features relevant to the smartwatch technology. After screening 1,119 articles, 27 articles were chosen that were directly related to healthcare. Classified applications included activity monitoring, chronic disease self-management, nursing or home-based care, and healthcare education. All studies were considered feasibility or usability studies, and had limited sample sizes. No randomized clinical trials were found. Also, most studies utilized Android-based smartwatches over Tizen, custom-built, or iOS- based smartwatches, and many relied on the use of the accelerometer and inertial sensors to elucidate physical activities. The results show that most research on smartwatches has been conducted only as feasibility studies for chronic disease self-management. Specifically, these applications targeted various disease conditions whose symptoms can easily be measured by inertial sensors, such as seizures or gait disturbances. In conclusion, although smartwatches show promise in healthcare, significant research on much larger populations is necessary to determine their acceptability and effectiveness in these applications.

Indexed as

healthcaremobile health (mHealth)remote health monitoringSmartwatchsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30035250
PMCPMC6051724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.