ReviewGlobal cardiology science & practice2024
Wearable health monitoring: wave of the future or waste of time?
Review in Global cardiology science & practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Wrist to Precision: Enhanced Atrial Flutter Detection with Modified Smartwatch Single-Lead Electrocardiogram Placement.CJC open · 2025Article
- Patients' characteristics and six-month outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation in Kenya: a retrospective observational cohort study from the National Cardiovascular Registry.The Pan African medical journal · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation is responsible for over 400,000 hospitalizations in the United States (US) each year. This costs the US health system over 4 billion each year. New smartwatches can constantly monitor pulse, oxygen saturation, and even heart rhythm. The FDA has provided clearance for select smartwatches to detect arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation.
findingsThese devices are not currently widely implemented as diagnostic tools. In this review, we delve into the mechanism of how smartwatches work as healthcare tools and how they capture health data. Additionally, we analyze the reliability of the data collected by smartwatches and the accuracy of their sensors in monitoring health parameters. Moreover, we explore the accessibility of smartwatches as healthcare tools and their potential to promote self-care among individuals. Finally, we assess the outcomes of using smartwatches in healthcare, including the limited studies on the clinical effects and barriers to uptake by the community.
conclusionAlthough smartwatches are accurate for the detection of atrial fibrillation, they still face many hurdles, including access to aging populations and trust in the medical community.
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.