ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Wearables research for continuous monitoring of patient outcomes: A scoping review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embracing Digital as a Paradigm Shift in Medical Affairs.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- Biopsychosocial phenogroups in an urban population with coronary artery disease and their associations with adverse cardiovascular events.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Longitudinal digital phenotyping of activity rhythms and biological aging using commercial wearables.Nature communications · 2026Article
- An Agentic Multimodal Sensing Architecture for CT-Guided Wearable and Respiratory Monitoring in Oncology Care.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Personal Health App and Wearable Co-Design Framework for Rare and Complex Diseases: User-Centered, Collaborative Co-Design Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Physiotherapist-guided, wearable-informed exercise improves 6-minute walk distance in patients with type 2 diabetes, including those with diabetic kidney disease: a prospective study.Diabetology international · 2026Article
- The future digital outpatient clinic for movement disorders: from technological innovation to ethical and systemic implementation-a position paper.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Article
- The undue burdens of clinical trial participation: implications for equity, diversity, and inclusion.Trials · 2026Article
- Beyond the diagnostic threshold: paradigm shift in laboratory medicine from passive reaction to predictive capability.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Global-key region collaborative noise-aware for electrocardiogram signal quality assessment.PloS one · 2026Article
- Smart Ring in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Exploring mHealth interventions for medication management: a scoping review of digital tools, implementation barriers, and patient outcomes.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of wearable devices for remote health monitoring is a rapidly expanding field. These devices might benefit patients and providers; however, they are not yet widely used in healthcare. This scoping review assesses the current state of the literature on wearable devices for remote health monitoring in non-hospital settings.
methodsCINAHL, Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE were searched until August 5, 2024. We performed citation searching and searched Google Scholar. Studies on wearable devices in an outpatient setting with a clinically relevant, measurable outcome were included and were categorized according to intended use of data: monitoring of existing disease vs. diagnosis of new disease.
resultsEighty studies met eligibility criteria. Most studies used device data to monitor a chronic disease (68/80, 85%), most often neurodegenerative (22/68, 32%). Twelve studies (12/80, 15%) used device data to diagnose new disease, majority being cardiovascular (9/12, 75%). A range of wearable devices were studied with watches and bracelets being most common (50/80, 63%). Only six studies (8%) were randomized controlled trials, four of which (67%) showed evidence of positive clinical impact. Feasibility determinants were inconsistently reported, including compliance (51/80, 64%), patient-reported useability (13/80, 16%), and participant technology literacy (1/80, 1%).
conclusionsEvidence for clinical effectiveness of wearable devices remains scant. Heterogeneity across studies in terms of devices, disease targets and monitoring protocols makes data synthesis challenging, especially given the rapid pace of technical innovation. These findings provide direction for future research and implementation of wearable devices in healthcare.
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.