Consumer wearables, such as the Apple Watch or Fitbit devices, have become increasingly commonplace over the past decade. The application of these devices to health care remains an area of significant yet ill-defined promise. This review aims to identify the potential role of consumer wearables for the monitoring of otolaryngology patients.
Data Sources
PubMed.
Review Methods
A PubMed search was conducted to identify the use of consumer wearables for the assessment of clinical outcomes relevant to otolaryngology. Articles were included if they described the use of wearables that were designed for continuous wear and were available for consumer purchase in the United States. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were synthesized into a final narrative review.
Conclusions
In the perioperative setting, consumer wearables could facilitate prehabilitation before major surgery and prediction of clinical outcomes. The use of consumer wearables in the inpatient setting could allow for early recognition of parameters suggestive of poor or declining health. The real-time feedback provided by these devices in the remote setting could be incorporated into behavioral interventions to promote patients’ engagement with healthy behaviors. Various concerns surrounding the privacy, ownership, and validity of wearable-derived data must be addressed before their widespread adoption in health care.
Implications for Practice
Understanding how to leverage the wealth of biometric data collected by consumer wearables to improve health outcomes will become a high-impact area of research and clinical care. Well-designed comparative studies that elucidate the value and clinical applicability of these data are needed.
GaoWEmaminejadSNyeinHYY, et al. Fully integrated wearable sensor arrays for multiplexed in situ perspiration analysis. Nature. 2016;529(7587):509-514. doi:10.1038/nature16521
2.
International Data Corporation. Consumer enthusiasm for wearable devices drives the market to 28.4% growth in 2020, according to IDC. Published 2021. Accessed June 4, 2021. https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS47534521
3.
ChandrasekaranRKatthulaVMoustakasE. Patterns of use and key predictors for the use of wearable health care devices by US adults: insights from a national survey. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(10):e22443. doi:10.2196/22443
4.
LuLZhangJXieY, et al. Wearable health devices in health care: narrative systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(11):e18907. doi:10.2196/18907
5.
KoongCSYangTITsengCC. A user authentication scheme using physiological and behavioral biometrics for multitouch devices. Sci World J. 2014;2014:781234. doi:10.1155/2014/781234
6.
JeongICBychkovDSearsonPC. Wearable devices for precision medicine and health state monitoring. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019;66(5):1242-1258. doi:10.1109/TBME.2018.2871638
7.
Dinh-LeCChuangRChokshiSMannD. Wearable health technology and electronic health record integration: scoping review and future directions. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(9):e12861. doi:10.2196/12861
8.
WeissDRydlandHTØversveenEJensenMRSolhaugSKrokstadS. Innovative technologies and social inequalities in health: a scoping review of the literature. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195447. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0195447
9.
LuciveroFJongsmaKR. A mobile revolution for healthcare? Setting the agenda for bioethics. J Med Ethics. 2018;44(10):685-689. doi:10.1136/medethics-2017-104741
10.
LowCABovbjergDHAhrendtS, et al. Fitbit step counts during inpatient recovery from cancer surgery as a predictor of readmission. Ann Behav Med. 2018;52(1):88-92. doi:10.1093/abm/kax022
11.
RossiLAMelstromLGFongYSunV. Predicting post-discharge cancer surgery complications via telemonitoring of patient-reported outcomes and patient-generated health data. J Surg Oncol. 2021;123(5):1345-1352. doi:10.1002/jso.26413
12.
CosHLiDWilliamsG, et al. Predicting outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatectomy using wearable technology and machine learning: prospective cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(3):e23595. doi:10.2196/23595
13.
YiYSossenheimerPHEronduAI, et al. Using wearable biosensors to predict length of stay for patients with IBD after bowel surgery. Dig Dis Sci. Published online March24, 2021. doi:10.1007/s10620-021-06910-w
14.
HedrickTLHassingerTEMyersE, et al. Wearable technology in the perioperative period: predicting risk of postoperative complications in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2020;63(4):538-544. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000001580
15.
BiniSAShahRFBendichIPattersonJTHwangKMZaidMB. Machine learning algorithms can use wearable sensor data to accurately predict six-week patient-reported outcome scores following joint replacement in a prospective trial. J Arthroplast. 2019;34(10):2242-2247. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.024
16.
KarasMMarinsekNGoldhahnJFoschiniLRamirezEClayI. Predicting subjective recovery from lower limb surgery using consumer wearables. Digit Biomark. 2020;4(suppl 1):73-86. doi:10.1159/000511531
17.
TwomeyRMatthewsTWNakoneshnyS, et al. Impact of early mobilization on recovery after major head and neck surgery with free flap reconstruction. Cancers. 2021;13(12):2852. doi:10.3390/cancers13122852
18.
CoyleMJMainBHughesC, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for head and neck oncology patients. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016;41(2):118-126. doi:10.1111/coa.12482
19.
TwomeyRCulos-ReedSNDaunJTFerberRDortJC. Wearable activity trackers and mobilization after major head and neck cancer surgery: you can’t improve what you don’t measure. Int J Surg. 2020;84:120-124. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.10.032
20.
BassettDRTothLPLaMunionSRCrouterSE. Step counting: a review of measurement considerations and health-related applications. Sports Med. 2017;47(7):1303-1315. doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0663-1
21.
AnHSJonesGCKangSKWelkGJLeeJM. How valid are wearable physical activity trackers for measuring steps?Eur J Sport Sci. 2017;17(3):360-368. doi:10.1080/17461391.2016.1255261
22.
KaneWJHassingerTEMyersEL, et al. Wearable technology and the association of perioperative activity level with 30-day readmission among patients undergoing major colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. Published online March29, 2021. doi:10.1007/s00464-021-08449-3
23.
DoryabADeyAKKaoGLowC. Modeling biobehavioral rhythms with passive sensing in the wild: a case study to predict readmission risk after pancreatic surgery. Proc ACM Interact Mob Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2019;3(1):1-21. doi:10.1145/3314395
24.
WuJMHoTWChangYT, et al. Wearable-based mobile health app in gastric cancer patients for postoperative physical activity monitoring: Focus group study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(4):1-12. doi:10.2196/11989
25.
WolkSLinkeSBognerA, et al. Use of activity tracking in major visceral surgery—the Enhanced Perioperative Mobilization Trial: a randomized controlled trial. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(6):1218-1226. doi:10.1007/s11605-018-3998-0
26.
CookDJThompsonJEPrinsenSKDearaniJADeschampsC. Functional recovery in the elderly after major surgery: assessment of mobility recovery using wireless technology. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(3):1057-1061. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.05.092
27.
ReedBTaboneLETaboneJKSzokaNAbunnajaSBaileyK. The use of an activity tracker to objectively measure inpatient activity after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17(1):90-95. doi:10.1016/j.soard.2020.08.033
28.
DaskivichTJHoumanJLopezM, et al. Association of wearable activity monitors with assessment of daily ambulation and length of stay among patients undergoing major surgery. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(2):e187673. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7673
29.
KimDHNamKHChoiBKHanIHJeonTJParkSY. The usefulness of a wearable device in daily physical activity monitoring for the hospitalized patients undergoing lumbar surgery. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2019;62(5):561-566. doi:10.3340/jkns.2018.0131
30.
MassouhFMartinRChanB, et al. Is activity tracker-measured ambulation an accurate and reliable determinant of postoperative quality of recovery? A prospective cohort validation study. Anesth Analg. 2019;129(4):1144-1152. doi:10.1213/ANE.000 0000000003913
31.
GhentFMobbsRJMobbsRRSyLBetteridgeCChoyWJ. Assessment and post-intervention recovery after surgery for lumbar disk herniation based on objective gait metrics from wearable devices using the gait posture index. World Neurosurg. 2020;142:e111-e116. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.104
32.
PattersonJTWuHHChungCCBendichIBarryJJBiniSA. Wearable activity sensors and early pain after total joint arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2020;6(1):68-70. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2019.12.006
33.
LowCALiMVegaJ, et al. Digital biomarkers of symptom burden self-reported by perioperative patients undergoing pancreatic surgery: prospective longitudinal study. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(2):e27975. doi:10.2196/27975
34.
MorrisonRSMagazinerJMcLaughlinMA, et al. The impact of post-operative pain on outcomes following hip fracture. Pain. 2003;103(3):303-311. doi:10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00458-X
35.
DükingPTaflerMWallmann-SperlichBSperlichBKleihS. Behavior change techniques in wrist-worn wearables to promote physical activity: content analysis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020;8(11):e20820. doi:10.2196/20820
36.
LiCChenXBiX. Wearable activity trackers for promoting physical activity: a systematic meta-analytic review. Int J Med Inform. 2021;152:104487. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104487
37.
SindharSKallogjeriDWildesTSAvidanMSPiccirilloJF. Association of preoperative functional performance with outcomes after surgical treatment of head and neck cancer: a clinical severity staging system. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(12):1128-1136. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2019.1035
38.
Santa MinaDClarkeHRitvoP, et al. Effect of total-body prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy. 2014;100(3):196-207. doi:10.1016/j.physio.2013.08.008
39.
HallidayLJDoganayEWynter-BlythVAHannaGBMoorthyK. The impact of prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes in oesophageal cancer surgery: a propensity score matched comparison. J Gastrointest Surg. Published online December2, 2020. doi:10.1007/s11605-020-04881-3
40.
MoranJGuinanEMcCormickP, et al. The ability of prehabilitation to influence postoperative outcome after intra-abdominal operation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery. 2016;160(5):1189-1201. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2016.05.014
41.
Barberan-GarciaAUbréMRocaJ, et al. Personalised prehabilitation in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery: a randomized blinded controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;267(1):50-56. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002293
42.
CarliFBousquet-DionGAwasthiR, et al. Effect of multimodal prehabilitation vs postoperative rehabilitation on 30-day postoperative complications for frail patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(3):233-242. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.5474
43.
FerreiraVLawsonCEkmekjianTCarliFScheede-BergdahlCChevalierS. Effects of preoperative nutrition and multimodal prehabilitation on functional capacity and postoperative complications in surgical lung cancer patients: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2021Oct;29(10):5597-5610. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06161-5
44.
AuDMatthewAGLopezP, et al. Prehabilitation and acute postoperative physical activity in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a secondary analysis from an RCT. Sports Med Open. 2019;5(1):18. doi:10.1186/s40798-019-0191-2
45.
AusaniaFSenraPMeléndezRCaballeiroROuviñaRCasal-NúñezE. Prehabilitation in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2019;111(8):603-608. doi:10.17235/REED.2019.6182/2019
46.
LutherAGabrielJWatsonRPFrancisNK. The impact of total body prehabilitation on post-operative outcomes after major abdominal surgery: a systematic review. World J Surg. 2018;42(9):2781-2791. doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4569-y
47.
JanssenERCPuntIMClemensMJStaalJBHoogeboomTJWillemsPC. Current prehabilitation programs do not improve the postoperative outcomes of patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021;51(3):103-114. doi:10.2519/JOSPT.2021.9748
48.
LoewenIJefferyCCRiegerJConstantinescuG. Prehabilitation in head and neck cancer patients: a literature review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;50(1):2. doi:10.1186/s40463-020-00486-7
49.
DortJCTwomeyRCulos-ReedSN. Exercise prehabilitation—supporting recovery from major head and neck cancer surgery. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(8):689-690. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2020.1346
50.
NoJHKimKKimYB, et al. Effects of an activity tracker with feedback on physical activity in women after midline laparotomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(7):2544-2550. doi:10.1111/jog.14807
51.
TwomeyRYeungSTWrightsonJGMilletGYCulos-ReedSN. Post-exertional malaise in people with chronic cancer-related fatigue. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60(2):407-416. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.02.012
52.
BlountDSMcDonoughDJGaoZ. Effect of wearable technology-based physical activity interventions on breast cancer survivors’ physiological, cognitive, and emotional outcomes: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):2015. doi:10.3390/jcm10092015
53.
GrimesLOuttrimJGGriffinSJErcoleA. Accelerometery as a measure of modifiable physical activity in high-risk elderly preoperative patients: a prospective observational pilot study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032346. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032346
54.
BaldwinCEParrySMNortonLWilliamsJLewisLK. A scoping review of interventions using accelerometers to measure physical activity or sedentary behaviour during hospitalization. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(9):1157-1172. doi:10.1177/0269215520932965
55.
BallantyneJCCarrDBDeFerrantiS, et al. The comparative effects of postoperative analgesic therapies on pulmonary outcome: cumulative meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 1998;86(3):598-612. doi:10.1097/00000539-199803000-00032
56.
PetersMLSommerMde RijkeJM, et al. Somatic and psychologic predictors of long-term unfavorable outcome after surgical intervention. Ann Surg. 2007;245(3):487-494. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000245495.79781.65
57.
BrummettCMWaljeeJFGoeslingJ, et al. New persistent opioid use after minor and major surgical procedures in US adults. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):e170504. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0504
58.
BicketMCLongJJPronovostPJAlexanderGCWuCL. Prescription opioid analgesics commonly unused after surgery: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(11):1066-1071. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0831
59.
SerrellECGreenbergCCBorzaT. Surgeons and perioperative opioid prescribing: an underappreciated contributor to the opioid epidemic. Cancer. 2021;127(2):184-187. doi:10.1002/cncr.33199
LerouxARzasa-LynnRCrainiceanuCSharmaT. Wearable devices: current status and opportunities in pain assessment and management. Digit Biomark. 2021;5(1):89-102. doi:10.1159/000515576
62.
BakerDW. History of the Joint Commission’s pain standards: lessons for today’s prescription opioid epidemic. JAMA. 2017;317(11):1117-1118. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0935
63.
SchlerethTBirkleinF. The sympathetic nervous system and pain. Neuromolecular Med. 2008;10(3):141-147. doi:10.1007/s12017-007-8018-6
64.
LeeWKYoonHParkKS. Smart ECG monitoring patch with built-in R-peak detection for long-term HRV analysis. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;44(7):2292-2301. doi:10.1007/s10439-015-1502-5
65.
Mejía-MejíaEBudidhaKAbayTYMayJMKyriacouPA. Heart rate variability (HRV) and pulse rate variability (PRV) for the assessment of autonomic responses. Front Physiol. 2020;11:779. doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.00779
66.
StoneJDUlmanHKTranK, et al. Assessing the accuracy of popular commercial technologies that measure resting heart rate and heart rate variability. Front Sports Act Living. 2021;3:585870. doi:10.3389/fspor.2021.585870
67.
BentBGoldsteinBAKibbeWADunnJP. Investigating sources of inaccuracy in wearable optical heart rate sensors. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:18. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0226-6
68.
CowenRStasiowskaMKLaycockHBantelC. Assessing pain objectively: the use of physiological markers. Anaesthesia. 2015;70(7):828-847. doi:10.1111/anae.13018
69.
JohnsonAYangFGollarahalliS, et al. Use of mobile health apps and wearable technology to assess changes and predict pain during treatment of acute pain in sickle cell disease: feasibility study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019;7(12):e13671. doi:10.2196/13671
70.
JiangMMieronkoskiRSyrjäläE, et al. Acute pain intensity monitoring with the classification of multiple physiological parameters. J Clin Monit Comput. 2019;33(3):493-507. doi:10.1007/s10877-018-0174-8
71.
NaeiniEKSubramanianACalderonMD, et al. Pain recognition with electrocardiographic features in postoperative patients: method validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(5):e25079. doi:10.2196/25079
72.
AqajariSAHCaoRNaeiniEK, et al. Pain assessment tool with electrodermal activity for postoperative patients: method validation study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(5):e25258. doi:10.2196/25258
73.
NaeiniEKJiangMSyrjäläE, et al. Prospective study evaluating a pain assessment tool in a postoperative environment: protocol for algorithm testing and enhancement. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020;9(7):e17783. doi:10.2196/17783
74.
WorleySL. The extraordinary importance of sleep: the detrimental effects of inadequate sleep on health and public safety drive an explosion of sleep research. P T. 2018;43(12):758-763.
75.
SantosoAMMJansenFde VriesRLeemansCRvan StratenAVerdonck-de LeeuwIM. Prevalence of sleep disturbances among head and neck cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. 2019;47:62-73. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2019.06.003
76.
ZhuYWangGLiuS, et al. Risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47(6):505-511. doi:10.1093/jjco/hyx029
77.
DolanRHuhJTiwariNSproatTCamilleri-BrennanJ. A prospective analysis of sleep deprivation and disturbance in surgical patients. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016;6:1-5. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2015.12.046
78.
HoeyLMFulbrookPDouglasJA. Sleep assessment of hospitalised patients: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(9):1281-1288. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.02.001
79.
De ZambottiMCelliniNGoldstoneAColrainIMBakerFC. Wearable sleep technology in clinical and research settings. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(7):1538-1557. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001947
80.
EvensonKRGotoMMFurbergRD. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:159. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0314-1
81.
Moreno-PinoFPorras-SegoviaALópez-EstebanPArtésABaca-GarcíaE. Validation of Fitbit Charge 2 and Fitbit Alta HR against polysomnography for assessing sleep in adults with obstructive sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med. 2019;15(11):1645-1653. doi:10.5664/jcsm.8032
82.
DuboseJRHadiK. Improving inpatient environments to support patient sleep. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016;28(5):540-553. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw079
83.
MahdaviniaMSchleimerRPKeshavarzianA. Sleep disruption in chronic rhinosinusitis. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2017;15(5):457-465. doi:10.1080/14787210.2017.1294063
84.
UcakSDissanayakeHUSutherlandKde ChazalPCistulliPA. Heart rate variability and obstructive sleep apnea: current perspectives and novel technologies. J Sleep Res. 2021;30(4):e13274. doi:10.1111/jsr.13274
85.
DedhiaRCShahAJBliwiseDL, et al. Hypoglossal nerve stimulation and heart rate variability: analysis of STAR Trial responders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;160(1):165-171. doi:10.1177/0194599818800284
86.
BaronKGDuffecyJBerendsenMACheung MasonILattieEGManaloNC. Feeling validated yet? A scoping review of the use of consumer-targeted wearable and mobile technology to measure and improve sleep. Sleep Med Rev. 2018;40:151-159. doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2017.12.002
87.
PapiniGBFonsecaPvan GilstMMBergmansJWMVullingsROvereemS. Wearable monitoring of sleep-disordered breathing: estimation of the apnea-hypopnea index using wrist-worn reflective photoplethysmography. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13512. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69935-7
88.
AltiniMKinnunenH. The promise of sleep: a multi-sensor approach to accurate sleep stage detection using the Oura ring. Sensors. 2021;21(13):4302. doi:10.3390/s21134302
89.
FonsecaPWeysenTGoelemaMS, et al. Validation of photoplethysmography-based sleep staging compared with polysomnography in health middle-aged adults. Sleep. 2017;40(7). doi:10.1093/sleep/zsx097
90.
HaghayeghSKhoshnevisSSmolenskyMHDillerKRCastriottaRJ. Deep neural network sleep scoring using combined motion and heart rate variability data. Sensors. 2021;21(1):25. doi:10.3390/s21010025
91.
KorkalainenHAakkoJDuceB, et al. Deep learning enables sleep staging from photoplethysmogram for patients with suspected sleep apnea. Sleep. 2020;43(11):zsaa098. doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa098
92.
AronowWS. Management of hypertension in patients undergoing surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(10):227. doi:10.21037/atm.2017.03.54
93.
NagelePRaoLKPentaM, et al. Postoperative myocardial injury after major head and neck cancer surgery. Head Neck. 2011;33(8):1085-1091. doi:10.1002/hed.21577
94.
StaessenJAYangWYMelgarejoJD, et al. Association of office and ambulatory blood pressure with mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. JAMA. 2019;322(5):409-420. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9811
KarioK. Management of hypertension in the digital era: small wearable monitoring devices for remote blood pressure monitoring. Hypertension. 2020;76(3):640-650. doi:10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.14742
97.
NachmanDGilanAGoldsteinN, et al. 24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement using a novel non-invasive, cuff-less, wireless device. Am J Hypertens. Published online June18, 2021. doi:10.1093/ajh/hpab095
DixPHowellS. Survey of cancellation rate of hypertensive patients undergoing anaesthesia and elective surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86(6):789-793. doi:10.1093/bja/86.6.789
100.
PangKPBaptistaPMJOlszewskaE, et al. SLEEP-GOAL: a multicenter success criteria outcome study on 302 obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients. Med J Malaysia. 2020;75(2):117-123.
101.
MarinJMAgustiAVillarI, et al. Association between treated and untreated obstructive sleep apnea and risk of hypertension. JAMA. 2012;307(20):2169-1276. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.3418
102.
LeenenJPLLeerentveldCvan DijkJDvan WestreenenHLSchoonhovenLPatijnGA. Current evidence for continuous vital signs monitoring by wearable wireless devices in hospitalized adults: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e18636. doi:10.2196/18636
103.
JoshiMArcherSMorbiA, et al. Short-term wearable sensors for in-hospital medical and surgical patients: mixed methods analysis of patient perspectives. JMIR Perioper Med. 2021;4(1):e18836. doi:10.2196/18836
104.
BourgetAChangJTCWuDBSChangCJWeiFC. Free flap reconstruction in the head and neck region following radiotherapy: a cohort study identifying negative outcome predictors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(5):1901-1908. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820cf216
105.
DowneyCRandellRBrownJJayneDG. Continuous versus intermittent vital signs monitoring using a wearable, wireless patch in patients admitted to surgical wards: pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(12):e10802. doi:10.2196/10802
106.
BolligCASpradlingCSDooleyLMGallowayTLJorgensenJB. Impact of perioperative hyperglycemia in patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction. Head Neck. 2018;40(6):1196-1206. doi:10.1002/hed.25097
107.
GalindoRJAleppoGKlonoffDC, et al. Implementation of continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital: emergent considerations for remote glucose monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2020;14(4):822-832. doi:10.1177/1932296820932903
108.
NairBGDellingerEPFlumDRRookeGAHirschIB. A pilot study of the feasibility and accuracy of inpatient continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(11):e168-e169. doi:10.2337/dc20-0670
109.
DavisGMSpanakisEKMigdalAL, et al. Accuracy of Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring in non–critically ill hospitalized patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2021;44(7):1641-1646. doi:10.2337/dc20-2856
HoppePKouzKSaugelB. Perioperative hypotension: clinical impact, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches. J Emerg Crit Care Med. 2020;4:8. doi:10.21037/jeccm.2019.10.12
112.
KhannaAKShawADStapelfeldtWH, et al. Postoperative hypotension and adverse clinical outcomes in patients without intraoperative hypotension, after noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2021;132(5):1410-1420. doi:10.1213/ANE.00000000 00005374
GukKHanGLimJ, et al. Evolution of wearable devices with real-time disease monitoring for personalized healthcare. Nanomaterials. 2019;9(6):813. doi:10.3390/nano9060813
115.
CilliersL. Wearable devices in healthcare: privacy and information security issues. Health Inf Manag. 2020;49(2-3):150-156. doi:10.1177/1833358319851684
116.
PredelCStegerF. Ethical challenges with smartwatch-based screening for atrial fibrillation: putting users at risk for marketing purposes?Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;7:615927. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2020.615927
117.
YetisenAKMartinez-HurtadoJLÜnalBKhademhosseiniAButtH. Wearables in medicine. Adv Mater. 2018;30(33):e1706910. doi:10.1002/adma.201706910
118.
RaberIMcCarthyCPYehRW. Health insurance and mobile health devices: opportunities and concerns. JAMA. 2019;321(18):1767-1768. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.3353
ZhangYSongSVullingsR, et al. Motion artifact reduction for wrist-worn photoplethysmograph sensors based on different wavelengths. Sensors. 2019;19(3):673. doi:10.3390/s19030673
121.
AppelboomGTaylorBEBruceE, et al. Mobile phone-connected wearable motion sensors to assess postoperative mobilization. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(3):e78. doi:10.2196/mhealth.3785
122.
FeehanLMGeldmanJSayreEC, et al. Accuracy of fitbit devices: systematic review and narrative syntheses of quantitative data. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018;6(8):e10527. doi:10.2196/10527
123.
ColvonenPJDeYoungPNBosompraNOAOwensRL. Limiting racial disparities and bias for wearable devices in health science research. Sleep. 2020;43(10):zsaa159. doi:10.1093/sleep/zsaa159
124.
RayILiaqatDGabelMDe LaraE. Skin tone, confidence, and data quality of heart rate sensing in WearOS smartwatches. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops and Other Affiliated Events, PerCom Workshops 2021. IEEE; 2021:213-219. doi:10.1109/PerComWorkshops51409.2021.9431120
125.
JoELewisKDirectoDKimMJYDolezalBA. Validation of biofeedback wearables for photoplethysmographic heart rate tracking. J Sports Sci Med. 2016;15(3):540-547.
126.
NangaliaVPrytherchDRSmithGB. Health technology assessment review: remote monitoring of vital signs—current status and future challenges. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):233. doi:10.1186/cc9208
127.
SymerMMAbelsonJSMilsomJMcClureBYeoHL. A mobile health application to track patients after gastrointestinal surgery: results from a pilot study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(9):1500-1505. doi:10.1007/s11605-017-3482-2
128.
ScheerJKBakhsheshianJKeefeMK, et al. Initial experience with real-time continuous physical activity monitoring in patients undergoing spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(10):E1434-E1443. doi:10.1097/BSD.0000000000000521
129.
AbbadessaGLavorgnaLMieleG, et al. Assessment of multiple sclerosis disability progression using a wearable biosensor: a pilot study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(6):1160. doi:10.3390/jcm10061160
130.
CarmichaelHOverbeyDMHosokawaP, et al. Wearable technology—a pilot study to define “normal” postoperative recovery trajectories. J Surg Res. 2019;244:368-373. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.057
131.
SunVDumitraSRuelN, et al. Wireless monitoring program of patient-centered outcomes and recovery before and after major abdominal cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(9):852-859. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1519
132.
FinleyDJFayKABatsisJA, et al. A feasibility study of an unsupervised, pre-operative exercise program for adults with lung cancer. Euro J Cancer Care. 2020;29(4):e13254. doi:10.1111/ecc.13254
133.
StienenMNRezaiiPGHoAL, et al. Objective activity tracking in spine surgery: a prospective feasibility study with a low-cost consumer grade wearable accelerometer. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):4939. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61893-4
134.
MosheITerhorstYOpoku AsareK, et al. Predicting symptoms of depression and anxiety using smartphone and wearable data. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:625247. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.625247
135.
MobbsRJPhanKMaharajMRaoPJ. Physical activity measured with accelerometer and self-rated disability in lumbar spine surgery: a prospective study. Global Spine J. 2016;6(5):459-464. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1565259
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
