Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40343891›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Wearables research for continuous monitoring of patient outcomes: A scoping review.

Kalee Lodewyk, Madeleine Wiebe, Liz Dennett, Jake Larsson, Andrew Greenshaw, Jake Hayward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Smart Ring in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. 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

6 authors.

Kalee LodewykDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5113-9671
Madeleine WiebeFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Liz DennettGeoffrey and Robyn Sperber Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jake LarssonFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Andrew GreenshawDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jake HaywardDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40343891
PMCPMC12063813

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.