ArticleHealth science reports2026
Wearable Technologies and Artificial Intelligence in Sports Medicine: A Systematic Narrative Review of Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation.
Article in Health science reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Wearable technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) are shifting sports medicine from episodic, subjective assessment toward continuous, data-driven injury surveillance. This review aimed to map the main wearable sensor modalities used in injury prevention and rehabilitation, evaluate AI architectures applied to biomechanical and physiological data, summarize clinically relevant applications by anatomical region, and identify methodological, ethical, and implementation challenges. Methods: A systematic narrative review was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies published from 2016 to 2026, supplemented by manual reference screening. Search terms combined wearable sensors, AI and machine learning, and sports medicine outcomes. After title and abstract screening of 614 records and full-text assessment of 87 articles, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Inertial measurement units, GPS/GNSS, surface electromyography, and photoplethysmography were the most frequently reported sensor modalities. Deep learning, ensemble methods, and multimodal fusion were commonly used to process biomechanical and physiological signals. One hybrid IMU-sEMG study involving 50 athletes reported 92.3% accuracy, 90.5% recall, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93 for classifying biomechanical injury-risk states. An ankle-monitoring study using data from 87 athletes across 12 sports reported 87.4% overall detection accuracy, a 12.1% false-alarm rate, and 17.2 ms latency. However, substantial heterogeneity in study design, populations, outcomes, and validation methods prevented direct comparison or pooled quantitative interpretation. Conclusion: Wearable-AI systems show promising potential for injury-risk monitoring, rehabilitation, and return-to-play support. Wider clinical adoption will require more diverse populations, longitudinal and field-based validation, improved model interpretability, standardized protocols, and robust ethical, legal, and governance frameworks.
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.