ArticlePediatric research2025
Wearable biosensors for pediatric hospitals: a scoping review.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent Real-Time Healthcare and Biomedical Monitoring Systems: A Narrative Review of AI, IoT, and Emerging Technologies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Monitoring and Targeted Regulation of Oxygen Metabolism in Pediatric Sepsis: Current Paradigms and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Wearable Biosensors for Continuous Monitoring of Chronic Kidney Disease: Materials, Biofluids, and Digital Health Integration.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Reimagining paediatric care: technology, trust, and the global movement for child-centred innovation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Wearable Devices in Pediatric Clinical Care: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Wearables in ADHD: Monitoring and Intervention-Where Are We Now?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Smartwatches in childhood: a mixed blessing?-a scoping review.Translational pediatrics · 2025Review
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
As wearable biosensors are increasingly used in healthcare settings, this review aimed to identify the types of wearable biosensors used for neonate and pediatric patients and how these biosensors were clinically evaluated. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. The studies published between January 2010 and February 2024 were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present counts and percentages of types, locations, clinical evaluation methods, and their results. Seventy-nine studies were included. 104 wearable sensors and 40 devices were identified. The most common type of biosensor was optoelectrical sensors (n = 40, 38.5%), and used to measure heart rate (n = 22, 19.0%). The clinical evaluation was tested by a combination of validity (n = 68, 86.1%) and reliability (n = 14, 17.7%). Only two-thirds of the wearable devices were validated or reported acceptable reliability. The majority of the biosensor studies (n = 51, 64.5%) did not report any complications related to wearable biosensors. The current literature has gaps regarding clinical evaluation and safety of wearable biosensor devices with interchangeable use of validity and reliability terms. There is a lack of comprehensive reporting on complications, highlighting the need for standardized guidelines in the clinical evaluation of biosensor medical devices. IMPACT: The most common types of biosensors in pediatric settings were optoelectrical sensors and electrical sensors. Only two-thirds of the wearable devices were validated or reported acceptable reliability, and more than half of the biosensor studies did not report whether they assessed any complications related to wearable biosensors. This review discovered significant gaps in safety and clinical validation reporting, emphasizing the need for standardized guidelines. The findings advocate for improved reporting clinical validation processes to enhance the safety of wearable biosensors in pediatric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39511444What 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.