Monitoring sarcopenia with wearable devices: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Sarcopenia is a highly prevalent muscle dysfunction among older adults and is associated with adverse events. The periodic monitoring enables an early screening of patients at risk and control of the progression of muscle impairment. Wearable devices have been used as clinical support for sarcopenia detection. Therefore, this review aims to identify how wearable devices have been used to screen sarcopenia.Methods and analyses
Searches will be conducted from August 2023 on PubMed, CINHAL, Embase, Web of Science and SciELO databases. We will include cross-sectional and/or baseline data from prospective studies reporting the use of wearable devices to investigate sarcopenia. Studies that discuss only the development of algorithms or applications for the assessment of sarcopenia or unavailable full texts will be excluded. The main reviewer will conduct the initial search and exclusion of duplicates, while two independent reviewers will select studies, extract data and assess the methodological quality using the Appraisal tool for Cross-sectional Studies.Ethics and dissemination
No previous ethical approval is required for this review. The findings of this review will be submitted to a scientific journal and disclosed at international scientific conferences.Prospero registration number
CRD42022356040.
SUBMITTER: Pimentel MM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10314455 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Monitoring sarcopenia with wearable devices: a systematic review protocol.
Pimentel Marcela Monteiro MM Dos Santos Whitney Houston Barbosa WHB Rodrigues Eujessika Katielly EK Gomes Fernandes Sabrina Gabrielle SG de Carvalho Polyagna Ferreira PF Fernandes Ana Tereza do Nascimento Sales Figueiredo ATDNSF Fernandes Ana Tereza do Nascimento Sales Figueiredo ATDNSF Barbosa Paulo Eduardo E Silva PEES Campos Cavalcanti Maciel Álvaro Á
BMJ open 20230621 6
<h4>Introduction</h4>Sarcopenia is a highly prevalent muscle dysfunction among older adults and is associated with adverse events. The periodic monitoring enables an early screening of patients at risk and control of the progression of muscle impairment. Wearable devices have been used as clinical support for sarcopenia detection. Therefore, this review aims to identify how wearable devices have been used to screen sarcopenia.<h4>Methods and analyses</h4>Searches will be conducted from August 20 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsHigh blood pressure (BP) is the commonest modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, yet its monitoring remains problematic. Wearable cuffless BP devices offer potential solutions; however, little is known about their validity and utility. We aimed to systematically review the validity, features and clinical use of wearable cuffless BP devices.Methods and resultsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, IEEE Xplore and the Cochrane Database till December 2019 for studies that reported validating cuffless BP devices. We extracted information about study characteristics, device features, validation processes, and clinical applications. Devices were classified according to their functions and features. We defined devices with a mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) biases of <5 mmHg as valid as a consensus. Our definition of validity did not include assessment of device measurement precision, which is assessed by standard deviation of the mean difference-a critical component of ISO protocol validation criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 tool. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to summarise the mean biases for SBP and DBP across studies. Of the 430 studies identified, 16 studies (15 devices, 974 participants) were selected. The majority of devices (81.3%) used photoplethysmography to estimate BP against a reference device; other technologies included tonometry, auscultation and electrocardiogram. In addition to BP and heart rate, some devices also measured night-time BP (n = 5), sleep monitoring (n = 3), oxygen saturation (n = 3), temperature (n = 2) and electrocardiogram (n = 3). Eight devices showed mean biases of <5 mmHg for SBP and DBP compared with a reference device and three devices were commercially available. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the wearable and reference devices for SBP (pooled mean difference = 3.42 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.17, 9.01, I2 95.4%) and DBP (pooled mean = 1.16 mmHg, 95% CI: -1.26, 3.58, I2 87.1%).ConclusionSeveral cuffless BP devices are currently available using different technologies, offering the potential for continuous BP monitoring. The variation in standards and validation protocols limited the comparability of findings across studies and the identification of the most accurate device. Challenges such as validation using standard protocols and in real-life settings must be overcome before they can be recommended for uptake into clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9708022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith technological advances, there has been increasing interest in developing contactless and/or non-invasive wearable technologies that continuously monitor vital signs in the clinical setting, and in particular in the deteriorating patient. These devices as of yet have not been well validated in the clinical setting in the clinical ranges observed in a critically unwell patient. We will perform a systematic review of all novel wearable and contactless devices in the clinical setting with focus on degree of novelty and the range of vital signs captured.MethodsOvid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database (Ovid), CINAHL with Full Text, searches of the grey literature, cited references of eligible studies through Web of Science, and reference lists of eligible studies will be searched. Outcomes of interest will include the quality of studies in relation to reporting guidelines, limitations of non-invasive technology, and application in different clinical populations. We will perform a qualitative assessment of the novelty of the device and discuss its validation in deteriorating patients.DiscussionWhile novel monitoring devices are often proposed as a solution to problems with infection, discomfort, and frequency of monitoring in the clinical setting it has not yet been established which devices have been validated in clinical settings in the pathological ranges of vital signs that reflect patient deterioration. It is equally unclear what additional value these devices might provide. This systematic review will synthesize published data regarding devices that have been tested and validated in patients AND in a clinical setting AND in reference ranges that reflect severe illness.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019130091.
| S-EPMC7201723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContinuous monitoring of vital signs by using wearable wireless devices may allow for timely detection of clinical deterioration in patients in general wards in comparison to detection by standard intermittent vital signs measurements. A large number of studies on many different wearable devices have been reported in recent years, but a systematic review is not yet available to date.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to provide a systematic review for health care professionals regarding the current evidence about the validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs of wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs.MethodsA systematic and comprehensive search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2009 to September 2019 for studies that evaluated wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs in adults. Outcomes were structured by validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs. Risk of bias was determined by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2nd edition, or quality of health economic studies tool.ResultsIn this review, 27 studies evaluating 13 different wearable wireless devices were included. These studies predominantly evaluated the validation or the feasibility outcomes of these devices. Only a few studies reported the clinical outcomes with these devices and they did not report a significantly better clinical outcome than the standard tools used for measuring vital signs. Cost outcomes were not reported in any study. The quality of the included studies was predominantly rated as low or moderate.ConclusionsWearable wireless continuous monitoring devices are mostly still in the clinical validation and feasibility testing phases. To date, there are no high quality large well-controlled studies of wearable wireless devices available that show a significant clinical benefit or cost-effectiveness. Such studies are needed to help health care professionals and administrators in their decision making regarding implementation of these devices on a large scale in clinical practice or in-home monitoring.
| S-EPMC7351263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWearable biometric monitoring devices (BMDs) have the potential to transform the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by shifting the collection of outcome data from single measurements at predefined time points to dense continuous measurements.MethodsMethodological systematic review to understand how recent RCTs used BMDs to measure outcomes and to describe the reporting of these RCTs. Electronic search was performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE and completed a page-by-page hand search in five leading medical journals between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted all primary and secondary outcomes collected using BMDs, and assessed (1) the definitions used to summarize BMD outcome data; (2) whether the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors was reported; (3) the discrepancy with outcomes prespecified in public clinical trial registries; and (4) the methods used to manage missing and incomplete BMD outcome data.ResultsOf the 4562 records screened, 75 RCTs were eligible. Among them, 24% tested a pharmacological intervention and 57% used an inertial measurement sensor to measure physical activity. Included trials involved 464 outcomes (average of 6 [SD = 8] outcomes per trial). In total, 35 trials used a BMD to measure a primary outcome. Several issues affected the value and transparency of trials using BMDs to measure outcomes. First, the definition of outcomes used in the trials was highly heterogeneous (e.g., 21 diabetes trials had 266 outcomes and 153 had different unique definitions to measure diabetes control), which limited the combination and comparison of results. Second, information on the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of sensors used was lacking in 74% of trials. Third, half (53%) of the outcomes measured with BMDs had not been prespecified, with a high risk of outcome reporting bias. Finally, reporting on the management of incomplete outcome data (e.g., due to suboptimal compliance with the BMD) was absent in 68% of RCTs.ConclusionsUse of BMDs to measure outcomes is becoming the norm rather than the exception in many fields. Yet, trialists need to account for several methodological issues when specifying and conducting RCTs using these novel tools.
| S-EPMC7646072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Elevated core temperature constitutes an important biomarker for COVID-19 infection; however, no standards currently exist to monitor fever using wearable peripheral temperature sensors. Evidence that sensors could be used to develop fever monitoring capabilities would enable large-scale health-monitoring research and provide high-temporal resolution data on fever responses across heterogeneous populations. We launched the TemPredict study in March of 2020 to capture continuous physiological data, including peripheral temperature, from a commercially available wearable device during the novel coronavirus pandemic. We coupled these data with symptom reports and COVID-19 diagnosis data. Here we report findings from the first 50 subjects who reported COVID-19 infections. These cases provide the first evidence that illness-associated elevations in peripheral temperature are observable using wearable devices and correlate with self-reported fever. Our analyses support the hypothesis that wearable sensors can detect illnesses in the absence of symptom recognition. Finally, these data support the hypothesis that prediction of illness onset is possible using continuously generated physiological data collected by wearable sensors. Our findings should encourage further research into the role of wearable sensors in public health efforts aimed at illness detection, and underscore the importance of integrating temperature sensors into commercially available wearables.
| S-EPMC7736301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this systematic review was to summarize the current literature on wearable technologies in oncology patients for the purpose of prognostication, treatment monitoring, and rehabilitation planning.MethodsA search was conducted in Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, up until February 2022. Articles were included if they reported on consumer grade and/or non-commercial wearable devices in the setting of either prognostication, treatment monitoring or rehabilitation.ResultsWe found 199 studies reporting on 18 513 patients suitable for inclusion. One hundred and eleven studies used wearable device data primarily for the purposes of rehabilitation, 68 for treatment monitoring, and 20 for prognostication. The most commonly-reported brands of wearable devices were ActiGraph (71 studies; 36%), Fitbit (37 studies; 19%), Garmin (13 studies; 7%), and ActivPAL (11 studies; 6%). Daily minutes of physical activity were measured in 121 studies (61%), and daily step counts were measured in 93 studies (47%). Adherence was reported in 86 studies, and ranged from 40% to 100%; of these, 63 (74%) reported adherence in excess of 80%.ConclusionWearable devices may provide valuable data for the purposes of treatment monitoring, prognostication, and rehabilitation. Future studies should investigate live-time monitoring of collected data, which may facilitate directed interventions.
| S-EPMC10994271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We sought to determine the feasibility of using wearable accelerometer devices for determining delirium effects on patients' physical activity patterns and detecting delirium and delirium subtype.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.Study selectionScreening was performed using predefined search terms to identify original research studies using accelerometer devices for studying physical activity in relation to delirium.Data extractionKey data were extracted from the selected articles.Data synthesisAmong the 14 studies identified, there were a total of 315 patients who wore accelerometer devices to record movements related to delirium. Eight studies (57.1%) used accelerometer devices to compare the activity of delirious and nondelirious patients. Delirious patients had lower activity levels, lower restlessness index, higher number of daytime immobility minutes, lower mean activity levels during the day, and higher mean activity levels at night. Delirious patients also had lower actual sleep time, lower sleep efficiency, fewer nighttime minutes resting, fewer minutes resting over 24 hours, and smaller change in activity from day to night. Six studies (42.9%) evaluated the feasibility of using accelerometer devices for detection of delirium and its subtype. Variables including number of postural changes during daytime, frequency of ultrashort, short, and continuous movements were significantly different among the nondelirium and the three delirium subtypes.ConclusionsThe results from the studies using accelerometer devices in studying delirium demonstrate that accelerometer devices can potentially detect the differences between delirious and nondelirious patients, detect delirium, and determine delirium subtype. We suggest the following directions as the next steps for future studies using accelerometer devices for predicting delirium: benchmark studies with longer data collection, larger and more diverse population size, incorporating related factors (e.g., medications), and evaluating delirium subtype and severity.
| S-EPMC7063934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Glaucoma is a common optic neuropathy that can lead to irreversible vision loss, and intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only known modifiable risk factor. The primary method of treating glaucoma involves lowering IOP using medications, laser and/or invasive surgery. Currently, we rely on in-office measurements of IOP to assess diurnal variation and to define successful management of disease. These measurements only convey a fraction of a patient's circadian IOP pattern and may frequently miss peak IOP levels. There is an unmet need for a reliable and accurate device for 24-h IOP monitoring. The 24-h IOP monitoring devices that are currently available and in development fall into three main categories: self-monitoring, temporary continuous monitoring, and permanent continuous monitoring. This article is a systematic review of current and future technologies for measuring IOP over a 24-h period.
| S-EPMC5055550 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) represents a frequent cause of hospital admission, with fluid overload directly contributing to decompensations. Bioimpedance (BI), a physical parameter linked to tissue hydration status, holds promise in monitoring congestion and improving prognosis. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical relevance of BI-based wearable devices for HF fluid monitoring.MethodsA systematic review of the published literature was conducted in five medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Embase) for studies assessing wearable BI-measuring devices on HF patients following PRISMA recommendations on February 4th, 2024. The risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS tool.ResultsThe review included 10 articles with 535 participants (mean age 66.7 ± 8.9 years, males 70.4%). Three articles identified significant BI value differences between HF patients and controls or congestive vs non-congestive HF patients. Four articles focused on the devices' ability to predict HF worsening-related events, revealing an overall sensitivity of 70.0 (95% CI 68.8-71.1) and specificity of 89.1 (95% CI 88.3-89.9). One article assessed prognosis, showing that R80kHz decrease was related to all-cause-mortality with a hazard ratio (HR) of 5.51 (95% CI 1.55-23.32; p = 0.02) and the composite all-cause-mortality and HF admission with a HR of 4.96 (95% CI 1.82-14.37; p = 0.01).ConclusionsBI-measuring wearable devices exhibit efficacy in detecting fluid overload and hold promise for HF monitoring. However, further studies and technological improvements are required to optimize their impact on prognosis compared to standard care before they can be routinely implemented in clinical practice.Prospero registrationThe search protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024509914).
| S-EPMC11440438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOlder adults may use wearable devices for various reasons, ranging from monitoring clinically relevant health metrics or detecting falls to monitoring physical activity. Little is known about how this population engages with wearable devices, and no qualitative synthesis exists to describe their shared experiences with long-term use.ObjectiveThis study aims to synthesize qualitative studies of user experience after a multi-day trial with a wearable device to understand user experience and the factors that contribute to the acceptance and use of wearable devices.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, PubMed, and Embase (2015-2020; English) with fixed search terms relating to older adults and wearable devices. A meta-synthesis methodology was used. We extracted themes from primary studies, identified key concepts, and applied reciprocal and refutational translation techniques; findings were synthesized into third-order interpretations, and finally, a "line-of-argument" was developed. Our overall goal was theory development, higher-level abstraction, and generalizability for making this group of qualitative findings more accessible.ResultsIn total, we reviewed 20 papers; 2 evaluated fall detection devices, 1 tested an ankle-worn step counter, and the remaining 17 tested activity trackers. The duration of wearing ranged from 3 days to 24 months. The views of 349 participants (age: range 51-94 years) were synthesized. Four key concepts were identified and outlined: motivation for device use, user characteristics (openness to engage and functional ability), integration into daily life, and device features. Motivation for device use is intrinsic and extrinsic, encompassing many aspects of the user experience, and appears to be as, if not more, important than the actual device features. To overcome usability barriers, an older adult must be motivated by the useful purpose of the device. A device that serves its intended purpose adds value to the user's life. The user's needs and the support structure around the device-aspects that are often overlooked-seem to play a crucial role in long-term adoption. Our "line-of-argument" model describes how motivation, ease of use, and device purpose determine whether a device is perceived to add value to the user's life, which subsequently predicts whether the device will be integrated into the user's life.ConclusionsThe added value of a wearable device is the resulting balance of motivators (or lack thereof), device features (and their accuracy), ease of use, device purpose, and user experience. The added value contributes to the successful integration of the device into the daily life of the user. Useful device features alone do not lead to continued use. A support structure should be placed around the user to foster motivation, encourage peer engagement, and adapt to the user's preferences.
| S-EPMC8212622 | biostudies-literature