Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36496546›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Data quality evaluation in wearable monitoring.

Sebastian Böttcher, Solveig Vieluf, Elisa Bruno, Boney Joseph, Nino Epitashvili, Andrea Biondi, Nicolas Zabler, Martin Glasstetter, Matthias Dümpelmann, Kristof Van Laerhoven and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Towards a Compositional Framework for Describing Human Phenotypes.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Deformation Driven Suction Cups: A Mechanics-Based Approach to Wearable Electronics.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors.

Sebastian Böttcher *Department of Neurosurgery, Epilepsy Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. sebastian.boettcher@uniklinik-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3407-8290
Solveig Vieluf *Division of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MS, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5532-8690
Elisa BrunoDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8166-1190
Boney JosephBioelectronics Neurophysiology and Engineering Laboratory, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1576-9344
Nino EpitashviliDepartment of Neurosurgery, Epilepsy Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2765-8286
Andrea BiondiDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-665X
Nicolas ZablerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Epilepsy Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4406-1863
Martin GlasstetterDepartment of Neurosurgery, Epilepsy Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4929-4332
Matthias DümpelmannDepartment of Neurosurgery, Epilepsy Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1476-7777
Kristof Van LaerhovenUbiquitous Computing, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Siegen, Siegen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5296-5347
Mona NasseriBioelectronics Neurophysiology and Engineering Laboratory, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2511-1458
Benjamin H BrinkmanBioelectronics Neurophysiology and Engineering Laboratory, Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2392-8608
Mark P RichardsonDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8925-3140
Andreas Schulze-BonhageDepartment of Neurosurgery, Epilepsy Center, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2382-0506
Tobias LoddenkemperDivision of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MS, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2074-0674

Funding

Optimizing Pharmacotherapy with Noninvasive Wearable Sensors and Subscalp EEGUG3NS123066 · NINDS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI BRINKMANN, BENJAMIN H, WORRELL, GREGORY A · 2022 to 2024
$1.2M
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft VI 1088/1-1Epilepsy Foundation My Seizure GaugeInnovative Medicines Initiative 115902National Science Foundation CBET-2138378NIH HHS UG3 NS123066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearable recordings of neurophysiological signals captured from the wrist offer enormous potential for seizure monitoring. Yet, data quality remains one of the most challenging factors that impact data reliability. We suggest a combined data quality assessment tool for the evaluation of multimodal wearable data. We analyzed data from patients with epilepsy from four epilepsy centers. Patients wore wristbands recording accelerometry, electrodermal activity, blood volume pulse, and skin temperature. We calculated data completeness and assessed the time the device was worn (on-body), and modality-specific signal quality scores. We included 37,166 h from 632 patients in the inpatient and 90,776 h from 39 patients in the outpatient setting. All modalities were affected by artifacts. Data loss was higher when using data streaming (up to 49% among inpatient cohorts, averaged across respective recordings) as compared to onboard device recording and storage (up to 9%). On-body scores, estimating the percentage of time a device was worn on the body, were consistently high across cohorts (more than 80%). Signal quality of some modalities, based on established indices, was higher at night than during the day. A uniformly reported data quality and multimodal signal quality index is feasible, makes study results more comparable, and contributes to the development of devices and evaluation routines necessary for seizure monitoring.

Indexed as

EpilepsyWearable Electronic DevicesData AccuracyHumansReproducibility of ResultsSeizures

Identifiers

PMID36496546
PMCPMC9741649

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.