ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Wearable Sleep and Circadian Monitoring in Intensive Care Nursing: A Scoping Review.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSleep and circadian disruption are common in critical illness, yet bedside assessment remains difficult. Wearables are unobtrusive and extend observation across 24 h, but their measurement performance in critical illness requires appraisal.
aimsTo map wearable sleep and circadian monitoring during intensive care, its measurement performance, clinical applications and nursing implications. STUDY
designA scoping review followed JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidance. PubMed, Europe PMC and OpenAlex were searched from inception to 22 July 2026, with citation searching. Eligible primary reports used a body-worn sensor during intensive care to estimate sleep or circadian/rest-activity outcomes at any age. Conventional polysomnography/electroencephalography without an eligible wearable, non-contact systems, staff studies and post-ICU-only monitoring were excluded. No risk-of-bias appraisal was undertaken.
resultsSixty-one reports (43 adult; 18 paediatric/neonatal; 1996-2026) were included. Actigraphy dominated; commercial trackers, smartwatches and one respiratory-belt/heart-rate-variability system were less common. Monitoring was feasible, but performance varied by device, patient state and age group: wake specificity was often poor in ventilated, sedated or immobile patients and agreement with patient or nurse reports was weak to modest. Records showed fragmented and daytime sleep, weak day-night consolidation and attenuated circadian rhythmicity. Nursing bundles, massage, positioning, light and chronotype-informed care changed selected outcomes, but effects were heterogeneous.
conclusionsWearables usefully describe rest-activity patterns and support nursing assessment, but agreement with physiological sleep varied by device, patient state and age; movement-derived estimates need clinical context and are not a stand-alone sleep measure. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses should combine wearable trends with patient report, sedation and mobility, delirium screening and care-interaction records; escalation thresholds require prospective validation.
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.