Trial reportPloS one2025
Remote early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections using a wearable-based algorithm: Results from the COVID-RED study, a prospective randomised single-blinded crossover trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Digital medicine for infectious diseases.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid and early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially during the pre- or asymptomatic phase, could aid in reducing virus spread. Physiological parameters measured by wearable devices can be efficiently analysed to provide early detection of infections. The COVID-19 Remote Early Detection (COVID-RED) trial investigated the use of a wearable device (Ava bracelet) for improved early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections in real-time. TRIAL
designProspective, single-blinded, two-period, two-sequence, randomised controlled crossover trial.
methodsSubjects wore a medical device and synced it with a mobile application in which they also reported symptoms. Subjects in the experimental condition received real-time infection indications based on an algorithm using both wearable device and self-reported symptom data, while subjects in the control arm received indications based on daily symptom-reporting only. Subjects were asked to get tested for SARS-CoV-2 when receiving an app-generated alert, and additionally underwent periodic SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. The overall and early detection performance of both algorithms was evaluated and compared using metrics such as sensitivity and specificity.
resultsA total of 17,825 subjects were randomised within the study. Subjects in the experimental condition received an alert significantly earlier than those in the control condition (median of 0 versus 7 days before a positive SARS-CoV-2 test). The experimental algorithm achieved high sensitivity (93.8-99.2%) but low specificity (0.8-4.2%) when detecting infections during a specified period, while the control algorithm achieved more moderate sensitivity (43.3-46.4%) and specificity (66.4-65.0%). When detecting infection on a given day, the experimental algorithm also achieved higher sensitivity compared to the control algorithm (45-52% versus 28-33%), but much lower specificity (38-50% versus 93-97%).
conclusionsOur findings highlight the potential role of wearable devices in early detection of SARS-CoV-2. The experimental algorithm overestimated infections, but future iterations could finetune the algorithm to improve specificity and enable it to differentiate between respiratory illnesses.
trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register number NL9320.
Indexed as
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.