Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39515863›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Use of commercially available wearable devices for physical rehabilitation in healthcare: a systematic review.

Ahmed Latif, Hasaneen Fathy Al Janabi, Meera Joshi, Gianpaolo Fusari, Leila Shepherd, Ara Darzi, Daniel R Leff

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Ahmed LatifDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK ahmed.latif@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0009-0001-9066-813X
Hasaneen Fathy Al JanabiUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Meera JoshiDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Gianpaolo FusariThe Helix Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7263-3398
Leila ShepherdThe Helix Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0004-7077-6178
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Daniel R LeffDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate whether commercially available 'off-the-shelf' wearable technology can improve patient rehabilitation outcomes, and to categorise all wearables currently being used to augment rehabilitation, including the disciplines and conditions under investigation.

designSystematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 statement checklist, and using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched up to and including July 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included trials and observational studies evaluating the use of consumer-grade wearables, in real patient cohorts, to aid physical therapy or rehabilitation. Only studies investigating rehabilitation of acute events with defined recovery affecting adult patients were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used a standardised protocol to search, screen and extract data from the included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Methods Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials V.2 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, respectively.

resultsEighteen studies encompassing 1754 patients met eligibility criteria, including six RCTs, six quasi-experimental studies and six observational studies. Eight studies used wearables in Orthopaedics, seven in Stroke Medicine, two in Oncology and one in General Surgery. All six RCTs demonstrated that wearable-driven feedback increases physical activity. Step count was the most common measure of physical activity. Two RCTs in orthopaedics demonstrated non-inferiority of wearable self-directed rehabilitation compared with traditional physiotherapy, highlighting the potential of wearables as alternatives to traditional physiotherapy. All 12 non-randomised studies demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of wearable-driven self-directed rehabilitation.

conclusionThis review demonstrates that consumer-grade wearables can be used as adjuncts to traditional physiotherapy, and potentially as alternatives for self-directed rehabilitation of non-chronic conditions. Better designed studies, and larger RCTs, with a focus on economic evaluations are needed before a case can be made for their widespread adoption in healthcare settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42023459567.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesWearable Electronic DevicesHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesREHABILITATION MEDICINESelf-Management

Identifiers

PMID39515863
PMCPMC11552580

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.