ReviewMedicine2025
A bibliometric analysis of wearable device research in sleep science: Trends and hotspots.
Review in Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Continuous Movement Monitoring at Home Through Wearable Devices: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
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
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to examine academic discourse on wearable devices for sleep, evaluating the domain's current landscape and identifying key research foci.
methodsThe articles and reviews regarding wearable devices for sleep were culled from the Web of Science Core Collection, spanning the years 2004 to 2025. CiteSpace software was employed to visualize the knowledge map, including publication trends, country, author, journal, and keyword.
resultsAccording to the search strategy, a total of 1572 published articles and reviews were retrieved. The number of publications and citations showed an increasing trend over the past 2 decades. Sensors was the most productive journal, while sleep was the most cited. The United States was the most productive country, followed by China and England. The University of California System was leading research hubs in this field. Hannah Scott published the most papers, and Massimiliano de Zambotti was the most frequently co-cited author. The review published by Massimiliano de Zambotti and Shahab Haghayegh in 2019 was the most influential publication. The most frequently occurring keywords in the field of wearable devices for sleep were "physical activity," "sleep," "wearable devices," "heart rate variability," "validation," "actigraphy," "machine learning," "health," "wearable device," "wearable sensors," "validity," and "polysomnography." The keyword "validity" had the highest burst rate, while "dynamics," "atrial fibrillation," "human activity recognition," "major depressive disorder," and "light" emerged as new research hotspots in recent years.
conclusionsThis study provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of wearable device research in sleep science. By identifying key trends, influential researchers, and emerging research areas, this study offers valuable insights for future research and development in this field.
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.