Role of Wearable Accelerometer Devices in Delirium Studies: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Data sources
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.Study selection
Screening was performed using predefined search terms to identify original research studies using accelerometer devices for studying physical activity in relation to delirium.Data extraction
Key data were extracted from the selected articles.Data synthesis
Among 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.Conclusions
The 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.
SUBMITTER: Davoudi A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063934 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionSarcopenia 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 analysesSearches 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 disseminationNo 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 numberCRD42022356040.
| S-EPMC10314455 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based comprehensive program that includes exercise training, health education, physical activity promotion, and extensive counseling for the management of cardiovascular risk factors. Wearable devices monitor certain physiological functions, providing biometric data such as heart rate, movement, sleep, ECG analysis, blood pressure, energy expenditure, and numerous other parameters. Recent evidence supports wearable devices as a likely relevant component in cardiovascular risk assessment and disease prevention. The purpose of this scoping review is to better understand the role of wearable devices in home-based CR (HBCR) and to characterize the evidence regarding the incorporation of wearable devices in HBCR programs and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods & findings We created a search strategy for multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (Ebsco), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), and Scopus (Elsevier). Studies were included if the patients were eligible for CR per Medicare guidelines and >18 years of age and if some type of wearable device was utilized during HBCR. Our search yielded 57 studies meeting all criteria. The studies were classified into 4 groups: patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) without heart failure (HF); patients with HF; patients with heart valve repair or replacement; and patients with exposure to center-based CR. In three groups, there was an upward trend toward improvement in quality of life (QOL) and peak VO2, less sedentary time, and an increase in daily step count in the intervention groups compared to control groups. Conclusions HBCR using wearable devices can be a comparable alternative or adjunct to center-based CR for patients with CHD and HF. More studies are needed to draw conclusions about the comparability of HBCR to center-based CR in patients with heart valve repair or replacement.
| S-EPMC10231816 | 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:Abstract Aims High 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 results We 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%). Conclusion Several 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. Graphical Abstract Graphical abstract Wearable BP device system.
| S-EPMC9708022 | 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
Project description:Neurodegenerative disorders (NDDs) constitute an increasing global burden and can significantly impair an individual's mobility, physical activity (PA), and independence. Remote monitoring has been difficult without relying on diaries/questionnaires which are more challenging for people with dementia to complete. Wearable global positioning system (GPS) sensors and accelerometers present a cost-effective and noninvasive way to passively monitor mobility and PA. In addition, changes in sensor-derived outcomes (such as walking behaviour, sedentary, and active activity) may serve as potential biomarkers of disease onset, progression, and response to treatment. We performed a systematic search across four databases to identify papers published within the past 5 years, in which wearable GPS or accelerometers were used to monitor mobility or PA in patients with common NDDs (Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, motor neuron diseases/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, vascular parkinsonism, and vascular dementia). Disease and technology-specific vocabulary were searched singly, and then in combination, identifying 4985 papers. Following deduplication, we screened 3115 papers and retained 28 studies following a full text review. One study used wearable GPS and accelerometers, while 27 studies used solely accelerometers in NDDs. GPS-derived measures had been validated against current gold standard measures in one Parkinson's cohort, suggesting that the technology may be applicable to other NDDs. In contrast, accelerometers are widely utilised in NDDs and have been operationalised in well-designed clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8705556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Complications following surgery are common and frequently occur the following discharge. Mobile and wearable digital health interventions (DHI) provide an opportunity to monitor and support patients during their postoperative recovery. Lack of high-quality evidence is often cited as a barrier to DHI implementation. This review captures and appraises the current use, evidence base and reporting quality of mobile and wearable DHI following surgery. Keyword searches were performed within Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and WHO Global Index Medicus databases, together with clinical trial registries and Google scholar. Studies involving patients undergoing any surgery requiring skin incision where postoperative outcomes were measured using a DHI following hospital discharge were included, with DHI defined as mobile and wireless technologies for health to improve health system efficiency and health outcomes. Methodological reporting quality was determined using the validated mobile health evidence reporting and assessment (mERA) guidelines. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised studies or MINORS depending on study type. Overall, 6969 articles were screened, with 44 articles included. The majority (n = 34) described small prospective study designs, with a high risk of bias demonstrated. Reporting standards were suboptimal across all domains, particularly in relation to data security, prior patient engagement and cost analysis. Despite the potential of DHI to improve postoperative patient care, current progress is severely restricted by limitations in methodological reporting. There is an urgent need to improve reporting for DHI following surgery to identify patient benefit, promote reproducibility and encourage sustainability.
| S-EPMC8590052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Continuous 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. OBJECTIVE:The 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. METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:In 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. CONCLUSIONS:Wearable 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:PurposeSeveral artificial intelligence (AI) models for the detection and prediction of cardiovascular-related diseases, including arrhythmias, diabetes, and sleep apnea, have been reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify AI models developed for or applicable to wearable and mobile devices for diverse cardiovascular-related diseases.Materials and methodsThe searched databases included Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. For AI models for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection, a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy was performed to summarize sensitivity and specificity.ResultsA total of 102 studies were included in the qualitative review. There were AI models for the detection of arrythmia (n=62), followed by sleep apnea (n=11), peripheral vascular diseases (n=6), diabetes mellitus (n=5), hyper/hypotension (n=5), valvular heart disease (n=4), heart failure (n=3), myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest (n=2), and others (n=4). For quantitative analysis of 26 studies reporting AI models for AF detection, meta-analyzed sensitivity was 94.80% and specificity was 96.96%. Deep neural networks showed superior performance [meta-analyzed area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.981] compared to conventional machine learning algorithms (meta-analyzed AUROC of 0.961). However, AI models tested with proprietary dataset (meta-analyzed AUROC of 0.972) or data acquired from wearable devices (meta-analyzed AUROC of 0.977) showed inferior performance than those with public dataset (meta-analyzed AUROC of 0.986) or data from in-hospital devices (meta-analyzed AUROC of 0.983).ConclusionThis review found that AI models for diverse cardiovascular-related diseases are being developed, and that they are gradually developing into a form that is suitable for wearable and mobile devices.
| S-EPMC8790582 | 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