SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Factors Affecting the Quality of Person-Generated Wearable Device Data and Associated Challenges: Rapid Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Home Sleep Apnea Testing Compared to In-lab Polysomnography for the Evaluation of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Children
Home Sleep Apnea Testing for the Evaluation of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Children Following Management With Adenotonsillectomy
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Consumer-oriented (wearable) sleep technology: a systematic SWOT analysis and recommendations for athletes and fitness enthusiasts.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Enhancing Enrollment and Adherence in Long-Term Wearable Research on Dementia: Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.JMIR aging · 2025Pooled it
- Cancer survivors' experiences with mHealth interventions for PA: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Phenotyping in Health Research: Scoping Review of Methods, Gaps, and Opportunities.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Examining the Role of Wearables in Inflammatory Arthritis Care: A Narrative Literature Review.The Journal of rheumatology · 2026Review
- Wearable Sensing for Clinical Physiology Monitoring: Emerging Paradigms.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Development of an artificial intelligence prediction model for moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations using continuous multiple unobtrusive sensors: protocol of a multicentre prospective observational study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Correcting Measurement Error and Zero Inflation in Functional Covariates for Scalar-on-Function Quantile Regression.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Multimodal Wearable Biosensing Meets Multidomain AI: A Pathway to Decentralized Healthcare.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- WHOOP, There It Is: Lessons From WHOOP's FDA Warning Letter.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Integrating Sensory Perception and Wearable Monitoring to Promote Healthy Aging: A New Frontier in Nutritional Personalization.Nutrients · 2026Review
- AT-HOME ASSESSMENT OF USABILITY AND DATA COLLECTION FROM A WEARABLE BIOELECTRONIC MONITORING DEVICE.Proceedings of the ... Design of Medical Devices Conference. Design of Medical Devices Conference · 2026Article
- Methods for analytical validation of novel digital clinical measures: A simulation study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Data-driven closed-loop health education: constructing an integrated assessment-intervention-feedback pathway for digital COPD management-a perspective.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Robust forecasting of sedentary bouts in chronic pelvic pain disorders for on-device learning and real-time deployment.npj women's health · 2026Article
- Implementation Framework to Increase Patient Adherence in Clinical Trials Utilizing Wearable Devices.Research square · 2025Article
- Caregiver experiences of an integrative patient-centered digital health application for pediatric type 1 diabetes care: Findings from a pilot clinical trial.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- The UMPIRE study: A first-in-human multicenter trial of bilateral subscalp monitoring for epileptic seizure detection.Epilepsia · 2025Article
- Validation of the Fitbit Charge 5 for the Detection of Heart Rate and Electrodermal Activity.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing interest in reusing person-generated wearable device data for research purposes, which raises concerns about data quality. However, the amount of literature on data quality challenges, specifically those for person-generated wearable device data, is sparse.
objectiveThis study aims to systematically review the literature on factors affecting the quality of person-generated wearable device data and their associated intrinsic data quality challenges for research.
methodsThe literature was searched in the PubMed, Association for Computing Machinery, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Google Scholar databases by using search terms related to wearable devices and data quality. By using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, studies were reviewed to identify factors affecting the quality of wearable device data. Studies were eligible if they included content on the data quality of wearable devices, such as fitness trackers and sleep monitors. Both research-grade and consumer-grade wearable devices were included in the review. Relevant content was annotated and iteratively categorized into semantically similar factors until a consensus was reached. If any data quality challenges were mentioned in the study, those contents were extracted and categorized as well.
resultsA total of 19 papers were included in this review. We identified three high-level factors that affect data quality-device- and technical-related factors, user-related factors, and data governance-related factors. Device- and technical-related factors include problems with hardware, software, and the connectivity of the device; user-related factors include device nonwear and user error; and data governance-related factors include a lack of standardization. The identified factors can potentially lead to intrinsic data quality challenges, such as incomplete, incorrect, and heterogeneous data. Although missing and incorrect data are widely known data quality challenges for wearable devices, the heterogeneity of data is another aspect of data quality that should be considered for wearable devices. Heterogeneity in wearable device data exists at three levels: heterogeneity in data generated by a single person using a single device (within-person heterogeneity); heterogeneity in data generated by multiple people who use the same brand, model, and version of a device (between-person heterogeneity); and heterogeneity in data generated from multiple people using different devices (between-person heterogeneity), which would apply especially to data collected under a bring-your-own-device policy.
conclusionsOur study identifies potential intrinsic data quality challenges that could occur when analyzing wearable device data for research and three major contributing factors for these challenges. As poor data quality can compromise the reliability and accuracy of research results, further investigation is needed on how to address the data quality challenges of wearable devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.