Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206120›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2024

Economic Perspective of the Use of Wearables in Health Care: A Systematic Review.

Gioacchino D De Sario Velasquez, Sahar Borna, Michael J Maniaci, Jordan D Coffey, Clifton R Haider, Bart M Demaerschalk, Antonio Jorge Forte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Gioacchino D De Sario VelasquezDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Sahar BornaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Michael J ManiaciDivision of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.
Jordan D CoffeyCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Clifton R HaiderDepartment of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Bart M DemaerschalkCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Antonio Jorge ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to explore the current state of research concerning the cost-effectiveness of wearable health technologies, excluding hearing aids, owing to extensive previous investigation. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to search studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of wearable health devices in terms of quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The search was conducted on March 28, 2023, and the date of publication did not limit the search. The search yielded 10 studies eligible for inclusion. These studies, published between 2012 and 2023, spanned various locations globally. The studies used data from hypothetical cohorts, existing research, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses. They covered a diverse range of wearable technologies applied in different health care settings, including respiratory rate monitors, pedometers, fall-prediction devices, hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention monitors, seizure detection devices, heart rate monitors, insulin therapy sensors, and wearable cardioverter defibrillators. The time horizons in the cost-effectiveness analyses ranged from less than a year to a lifetime. The studies indicate that wearable technologies can increase quality-adjusted life years and be cost-effective and potentially cost-saving. However, the cost-effectiveness depends on various factors, such as the type of device, the health condition being addressed, the specific perspective of the health economic analysis, local cost and payment structure, and willingness-to-pay thresholds. The use of wearables in health care promises improving outcomes and resource allocation. However, more research is needed to fully understand the long-term benefits and to strengthen the evidence base for health care providers, policymakers, and patients.

Identifiers

PMID40206120
PMCPMC11975836

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.