Evidence mapPaperPMID 41511829Full record

SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026

Advancements in Wearable Sensor Technologies for Health Monitoring in Terms of Clinical Applications, Rehabilitation, and Disease Risk Assessment: Systematic Review.

Bonsang Gu, Hyeon Su Kim, HyunBin Kim, Jun-Il Yoo

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. 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.

Bonsang GuDepartment of Biomedical Research Institute, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8487-9370
Hyeon Su KimDepartment of Biomedical Research Institute, Inha University Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6883-5448
HyunBin KimProgram in Biomedical Science and Engineering, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9386-9096
Jun-Il YooDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Incheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3575-4123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWearable sensor technologies such as inertial measurement units, smartwatches, and multisensor systems have emerged as valuable tools in clinical and real-world health monitoring. These devices enable continuous, noninvasive tracking of gait, mobility, and functional health across diverse populations. However, challenges remain in sensor placement standardization, data processing consistency, and real-world validation.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate recent literature on the clinical and research applications of wearable sensors. Specifically, it investigated how these technologies are used to assess mobility, predict disease risk, and support rehabilitation. It also identified limitations and proposed future research directions.

methodsThis review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to March 9, 2025. Inclusion criteria focused on studies using wearable sensors in clinical or real-world environments. A total of 30 eligible studies were identified for qualitative synthesis. Data extracted included study design, population characteristics, sensor type and placement, machine learning algorithms, and clinical outcomes.

resultsOf the included studies, 43% (13/30) were observational, 27% (8/30) were experimental, and 10% (3/30) were randomized controlled trials. Inertial measurement unit-based sensors were used in 67% (20/30) of the studies, with wrist-worn devices being the most common (13/20, 65%). Machine learning techniques were frequently applied, with random forest (6/30, 20%) and deep learning (5/30, 17%) models predominating. Clinical applications spanned Parkinson disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, and frailty, with several studies (4/30, 13%) reporting high predictive accuracy for fall risk and mobility decline (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve up to 0.97).

conclusionsWearable sensors show strong potential for mobility monitoring, disease risk assessment, and rehabilitation tracking in clinical and real-world settings. However, challenges remain in standardizing sensor protocols and data analysis. Future research should focus on large-scale, longitudinal studies; harmonized machine learning pipelines; and integration with cloud-based health systems to improve scalability and clinical translation.

Indexed as

RehabilitationWearable Electronic DevicesHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicRisk Assessmentgait analysishealth monitoringmHealthmobile healthrehabilitationsystematic reviewwearable sensors

Identifiers

PMID41511829
PMCPMC12831105

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.