Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39396094›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

A scoping review on advancements in noninvasive wearable technology for heart failure management.

Niels T B Scholte, Annemiek E van Ravensberg, Abdul Shakoor, Eric Boersma, Eelko Ronner, Rudolf A de Boer, Jasper J Brugts, Nico Bruining, Robert M A van der Boon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

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

9 authors.

Niels T B ScholteErasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. n.scholte@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2285-888X
Annemiek E van Ravensberg *Erasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abdul Shakoor *Erasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eric BoersmaErasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Eelko RonnerDepartment of Cardiology, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4032-7863
Rudolf A de BoerErasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jasper J BrugtsErasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Nico BruiningErasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0272-5617
Robert M A van der BoonErasmus Medical Center, Thorax Center, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-2590

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) 628.011.214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearables offer a promising solution for enhancing remote monitoring (RM) of heart failure (HF) patients by tracking key physiological parameters. Despite their potential, their clinical integration faces challenges due to the lack of rigorous evaluations. This review aims to summarize the current evidence and assess the readiness of wearables for clinical practice using the Medical Device Readiness Level (MDRL). A systematic search identified 99 studies from 3112 found articles, with only eight being randomized controlled trials. Accelerometery was the most used measurement technique. Consumer-grade wearables, repurposed for HF monitoring, dominated the studies with most of them in the feasibility testing stage (MDRL 6). Only two of the described wearables were specifically designed for HF RM, and received FDA approval. Consequently, the actual impact of wearables on HF management remains uncertain due to limited robust evidence, posing a significant barrier to their integration into HF care.

Identifiers

PMID39396094
PMCPMC11470936

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.