A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Wearable biosensors for pediatric hospitals: a scoping review. | LitMetric

Wearable biosensors for pediatric hospitals: a scoping review.

Pediatr Res

School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Nathan, Griffith, QLD, Australia.

Published: November 2024

As wearable biosensors are increasingly used in healthcare settings, this review aimed to identify the types of wearable biosensors used for neonate and pediatric patients and how these biosensors were clinically evaluated. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. The studies published between January 2010 and February 2024 were included. Descriptive statistics were used to present counts and percentages of types, locations, clinical evaluation methods, and their results. Seventy-nine studies were included. 104 wearable sensors and 40 devices were identified. The most common type of biosensor was optoelectrical sensors (n = 40, 38.5%), and used to measure heart rate (n = 22, 19.0%). The clinical evaluation was tested by a combination of validity (n = 68, 86.1%) and reliability (n = 14, 17.7%). Only two-thirds of the wearable devices were validated or reported acceptable reliability. The majority of the biosensor studies (n = 51, 64.5%) did not report any complications related to wearable biosensors. The current literature has gaps regarding clinical evaluation and safety of wearable biosensor devices with interchangeable use of validity and reliability terms. There is a lack of comprehensive reporting on complications, highlighting the need for standardized guidelines in the clinical evaluation of biosensor medical devices. IMPACT: The most common types of biosensors in pediatric settings were optoelectrical sensors and electrical sensors. Only two-thirds of the wearable devices were validated or reported acceptable reliability, and more than half of the biosensor studies did not report whether they assessed any complications related to wearable biosensors. This review discovered significant gaps in safety and clinical validation reporting, emphasizing the need for standardized guidelines. The findings advocate for improved reporting clinical validation processes to enhance the safety of wearable biosensors in pediatric care.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41390-024-03693-4DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

wearable biosensors
24
clinical evaluation
16
biosensors pediatric
12
wearable
10
optoelectrical sensors
8
two-thirds wearable
8
wearable devices
8
devices validated
8
validated reported
8
reported acceptable
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!