MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106679604 · doi:10.2196/74071

Wearable Devices for Remote Monitoring of Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W7106679604 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerInteroperabilityWearable technologyTerminologymHealthCertificationTelemedicineDigital health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Wearable devices enable the remote collection of health parameters, supporting the outpatient care plans recommended by the World Health Organization to manage chronic diseases. While disease-specific monitoring is accurate, a comprehensive analysis of wearables across various chronic diseases helps to standardize remote patient monitoring systems. Objective: This review aimed to identify wearables for remote monitoring of chronic diseases, focusing on (1) wearable devices, (2) sensor types, (3) health parameters, (4) body locations, and (5) medical applications. Methods: We developed a search strategy and conducted searches across three databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. After reviewing 1160 articles, we selected 61 that addressed cardiovascular, cancer, neurological, metabolic, respiratory, and other diseases. We created a data analysis method based on our 5 objectives to organize the articles for a comprehensive analysis. Results: From the 61 articles, 39 (64%) used wearable bands such as smartwatches, wristbands, armbands, and straps to monitor chronic diseases. Wearable devices commonly included various sensor types, such as accelerometers (n=39, 64%), photoplethysmographic sensors (n=18, 30%), biopotential meters (n=17, 28%), pressure meters (n=11, 18%), and thermometers (n=9, 15%). These sensors collected diverse health parameters, including acceleration (n=39, 64%), heart rate (n=24, 39%), body temperature (n=9, 15%), blood pressure (n=8, 13%), and peripheral oxygen saturation (n=7, 11%). Common sensor body locations were the wrist, followed by the upper arm and the chest. The medical applications of wearable devices were neurological (n=21, 34%) and cardiovascular diseases (n=15, 25%). Additionally, researchers applied wearable devices for wellness and lifestyle monitoring (n=39, 64%), mainly for activity (n=39, 100%) and sleep (n=10, 26%). Conclusions: This review underscores that wearable devices primarily function as bands, commonly worn on the wrist, to monitor chronic diseases. These devices collect data on acceleration, heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, and peripheral oxygen saturation, with a focus on neurological and cardiovascular diseases. Our findings provide a foundational road map for designing generalized remote patient monitoring systems to manage multimorbidity and support standardized terminology for interoperability across digital health systems. To translate this into practice, we recommend that future research prioritize pragmatic clinical trials with medically certified devices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207