SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Innovations in Deaf Health Care Communication: Systematic Review of Sign Language Recognition Systems.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- On the Design of a Sign Language Corpus of Medical Terms for Automatic Translation Systems: Mixed Methods Approach.JMIR human factors · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deaf individuals often face communication challenges when interacting with those who can hear. Within health care settings, these challenges may pose risks to their safety, potentially resulting in misdiagnoses, treatment errors, and decreased quality of care. Objective: This study aims to systematically review the evidence on communication systems reported in the literature that use human-computer interaction techniques to support communication between deaf individuals who use sign language and hearing health professionals in health care settings. The review focuses on systems that are either currently in use or proposed for use in health care and that have been tested using human participants or videos of human users. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed via MEDLINE, Web of Science, ACM, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Google Scholar in March 2025. The inclusion criteria comprised studies developing a sign language recognition system within a health care context and testing with human users. Eligible studies underwent screening by 2 independent investigators (LRV and LMMSR or LFRdO and GTdSS), with any disagreements resolved by a senior researcher (MSM). Results: The search retrieved 21,778 publications, and screening of reference lists identified 2 additional studies, resulting in a total of 23 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Most systems (15/23, 65.2%) were image-based, while 34.8% (8/23) relied on sensors (glove-based or depth-sensing). Applications varied across health care settings, including general hospital care (10/23, 43.5%), emergencies (8/23, 34.8%), and primary care (4/23, 17.4%). All systems were in the development and testing stage, with no data on security and psychological impacts. Accuracy ranged from 25% to 100% for image-based and 72% to 99.7% for sensor-based systems. Bidirectionality and facial expression recognition, crucial for effective communication, were largely overlooked. Conclusions: Image-based systems were more common than sensor-based ones, though both showed wide variability in accuracy in recognizing and interpreting signs. Most systems failed to address critical aspects such as bidirectional communication and the recognition of facial expressions, essential for effective communication. None fully addresses the requirements for integration into health care settings. These findings highlight the need for further research on implementation, usability, and impact on the quality of care for deaf patients.
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.