ArticleHeliyon2024
A practical guide for selecting continuous monitoring wearable devices for community-dwelling adults.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Selection and Prioritization of Medical Devices for HTA Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Existing Approaches.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Optimizing accelerometer implementation in a gerotherapeutic trial: Feasibility, adherence, and operational insights of ABLE.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Nurses' Knowledge of Insensible Water Loss and the Evolution of a Digital Decision-Support Tool for Personalized Fluid Balance Assessment: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Leveraging Digital Health Technologies to Assess Older Adults' Frailty and Nutritional Status: Two Cross-Sectional Studies.JMIR aging · 2026Observational
- Article
- The nine hallmarks of mental health and wellbeing as a watershed framework for resilient living and healthspan optimization.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Assessment of Dental Fear and Anxiety Tools for Children: A Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Selecting Wearable Devices to Measure Cardiovascular Functions in Community-Dwelling Adults: Application of a Practical Guide for Device Selection.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Review
- Cities, communities and clinics can be testbeds for human exposome and aging research.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Cardiac Telerehabilitation After Heart Attack Using E-Learning Platforms and Monitoring Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Narrative Review of the Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- From the Formation of Conceptual Framework to Regulatory Decision-Making: Considerations for the Developments of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The burgeoning landscape of wearable devices warrants a guide for the selection of devices. Existing guidelines and recommendations provide evaluation frameworks with theoretical principles but tend to lack a pragmatic application and systematic approach for device selection. While fitness trackers exemplify the convenience of wearable technologies, their selection for specific health monitoring purposes demands a nuanced understanding of varying functionalities and user compatibilities. Objective: The objective is to develop and present a practical guide for researchers, healthcare professionals, and device users to systematically select wearable devices for continuous monitoring in community-dwelling adults. Methods & results: Based on diverse sources, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI), the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Consortium, and comparative analyses of wearable technology performances from feasibility and usability studies, the guide incorporates five core criteria: continuous monitoring capability, device availability and suitability, technical performance (accuracy and precision), feasibility of use, and cost evaluation. The structured criteria can be applied in device selection as well as device evaluation. Conclusions: This practical guide provides a step-by-step solution for researchers, healthcare professionals, and device users to choose suitable wearable devices for continuous monitoring. It provides a comprehensive starting point, outlining how to effectively navigate the selection process for wearable devices amidst a plethora of similar options.
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.