7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Wearable technology for early detection of COVID-19: A systematic scoping review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Wearable technology is an emerging method for the early detection of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. This scoping review explored the types, mechanisms, and accuracy of wearable technology for the early detection of COVID-19. This review was conducted according to the five-step framework of Arksey and O’Malley. Studies published between December 31, 2019 and December 15, 2021 were obtained from 10 electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Taylor & Francis Online. Grey literature, reference lists, and key journals were also searched. All types of articles describing wearable technology for the detection of COVID-19 infection were included. Two reviewers independently screened the articles against the eligibility criteria and extracted the data using a data charting form. A total of 40 articles were included in this review. There are 22 different types of wearable technology used to detect COVID-19 infections early in the existing literature and are categorized as smartwatches or fitness trackers (67%), medical devices (27%), or others (6%). Based on deviations in physiological characteristics, anomaly detection models that can detect COVID-19 infection early were built using artificial intelligence or statistical analysis techniques. Reported area-under-the-curve values ranged from 75% to 94.4%, and sensitivity and specificity values ranged from 36.5% to 100% and 73% to 95.3%, respectively. Further research is necessary to validate the effectiveness and clinical dependability of wearable technology before healthcare policymakers can mandate its use for remote surveillance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references87

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

              Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Prev Med
                Prev Med
                Preventive Medicine
                Published by Elsevier Inc.
                0091-7435
                1096-0260
                22 July 2022
                September 2022
                22 July 2022
                : 162
                : 107170
                Affiliations
                Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Level 2, Clinical Research Centre, Block MD11, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore 117597.
                Article
                S0091-7435(22)00219-5 107170
                10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107170
                9304072
                35878707
                f1d62201-4779-462a-87ab-f43e1f922307
                © 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 6 April 2022
                : 29 June 2022
                : 17 July 2022
                Categories
                Review Article

                Medicine
                artificial intelligence,covid-19,early detection,wearable technology
                Medicine
                artificial intelligence, covid-19, early detection, wearable technology

                Comments

                Comment on this article