Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31035333›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Review on Wearable Technology Sensors Used in Consumer Sport Applications.

Gobinath Aroganam, Nadarajah Manivannan, David Harrison

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Gobinath AroganamDesign Department, Brunel University, London UB8 3PH, UK. 1203998@brunel.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5466-2582
Nadarajah ManivannanDesign Department, Brunel University, London UB8 3PH, UK. Nadarajah.Manivannan@brunel.ac.uk.
David HarrisonDesign Department, Brunel University, London UB8 3PH, UK. David.Harrison@brunel.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review paper discusses the trends and projections for wearable technology in the consumer sports sector (excluding professional sport). Analyzing the role of wearable technology for different users and why there is such a need for these devices in everyday lives. It shows how different sensors are influential in delivering a variety of readings that are useful in many ways regarding sport attributes. Wearables are increasing in function, and through integrating technology, users are gathering more data about themselves. The amount of wearable technology available is broad, each having its own role to play in different industries. Inertial measuring unit (IMU) and Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors are predominantly present in sport wearables but can be programmed for different needs. In this review, the differences are displayed to show which sensors are compatible and which ones can evolve sensor technology for sport applications.

Indexed as

SportsWearable Electronic DevicesAccelerometryGeographic Information SystemsHeart RateHumansdatasensorssmartsportwearable technology

Identifiers

PMID31035333
PMCPMC6540270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.