SynthesisClinical hematology international2024
The acceptability of using wearable electronic devices to monitor physical activity of patients with Multiple Myeloma undergoing treatment: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical hematology international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Process Systems Engineering in Precision Medicine: Opportunities in Autologous CAR-T Therapy.Engineering in life sciences · 2026Review
- How First-Line Therapy is Changing in non-Transplant Eligible Multiple Myeloma Patients.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is diagnosed in 6,000 people in the UK yearly. A performance status measure, based on the patients' reported level of physical activity, is used to assess patients' fitness for treatment. This systematic review aims to explore the current evidence for the acceptability of using wearable devices in patients treated for MM to measure physical activity directly. Methods: Three databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) up until 7th September 2023. Prospective studies using wearable devices to monitor physical activity in patients on treatment for MM were included. Bias across the studies was assessed using the CASP tool. Results: Nine studies, with 220 patients on treatment for MM, were included. Only two studies had a low risk of bias. Different wearable device brands were used for varying lengths of time and were worn on either the wrist, upper arm, or chest. Adherence, reported in seven studies, ranged from 50% to 90%. Six studies reported an adherence greater than 75%. Although physical activity was also measured in a heterogenous manner, most studies reported reduced physical activity during treatment, associated with a higher symptom burden. Conclusion: Monitoring patients receiving treatment for MM with a wearable device appears acceptable as an objective measure to evaluate physical activity. Due to the heterogeneity of the methods used, the generalisability of the results is limited. Future studies should explore the data collected prospectively and their ability to predict relevant clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.