Evidence mapPaperPMID 38257579Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Wearable Sensors as a Preoperative Assessment Tool: A Review.

Aron Syversen, Alexios Dosis, David Jayne, Zhiqiang Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
16.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [The potential of wearable technology in knee arthroplasty].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  11. Predicting Blood Glucose Levels with Organic Neuromorphic Micro-Networks.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aron SyversenSchool of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0021-8758
Alexios DosisSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1415-6156
David JayneSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Zhiqiang ZhangSchool of Electrical Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0204-3867
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

UK Research and Innovation EP/S024336/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surgery is a common first-line treatment for many types of disease, including cancer. Mortality rates after general elective surgery have seen significant decreases whilst postoperative complications remain a frequent occurrence. Preoperative assessment tools are used to support patient risk stratification but do not always provide a precise and accessible assessment. Wearable sensors (WS) provide an accessible alternative that offers continuous monitoring in a non-clinical setting. They have shown consistent uptake across the perioperative period but there has been no review of WS as a preoperative assessment tool. This paper reviews the developments in WS research that have application to the preoperative period. Accelerometers were consistently employed as sensors in research and were frequently combined with photoplethysmography or electrocardiography sensors. Pre-processing methods were discussed and missing data was a common theme; this was dealt with in several ways, commonly by employing an extraction threshold or using imputation techniques. Research rarely processed raw data; commercial devices that employ internal proprietary algorithms with pre-calculated heart rate and step count were most commonly employed limiting further feature extraction. A range of machine learning models were used to predict outcomes including support vector machines, random forests and regression models. No individual model clearly outperformed others. Deep learning proved successful for predicting exercise testing outcomes but only within large sample-size studies. This review outlines the challenges of WS and provides recommendations for future research to develop WS as a viable preoperative assessment tool.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsWearable Electronic DevicesBiological TransportElectrocardiographyExercise TestHumansexercise testingperioperative pathwaypreoperative assessmentwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID38257579
PMCPMC10820534
OpenAlexW4390815579

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.