ReviewDigital health
A systematic review on wearable-enabled remote health monitoring.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: Focus on Hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Pooled it
- Pulmonary Telerehabilitation and Telemonitoring for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Single-Arm Pilot Feasibility Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Functional Walking Capacity as a Screening Indicator for Peripheral Arterial Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Development of a Clinical Risk Equation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review investigates the application of wearable technologies for remote health monitoring, with a particular focus on their effectiveness in improving patient care and the current state of technological integration. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology, a comprehensive search was conducted for studies published between 2020 and 2025. A total of 55 studies were selected, and data were extracted regarding study design, wearable types, feedback mechanisms, and analytical approaches. Results: The analysis reveals a significant reliance on traditional statistical methods, with limited integration of advanced artificial intelligence techniques despite their potential to improve predictive capabilities. The review emphasizes the importance of personalized feedback mechanisms in promoting patient engagement and adherence. Furthermore, a notable gap was identified in research addressing cognitive and psychological well-being compared to physical health monitoring. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for more rigorous methodologies, including scientific clinical trials, to strengthen the evidence base. Future work should prioritize the integration of machine learning and adopt a more holistic approach to provide a comprehensive understanding of the state-of-the-art and inform future research directions.
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.