CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCancer survivorship and careNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

The Use of Wearables in Clinical Trials During Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review

Open access
Beauchamp, Ulrikke Lyng, Pappot, Helle, Holländer-Mieritz, Cecilie·2020·JMIR mHealth and uHealth
DOI 10.2196/22006PMC PMC7688381

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Interest in the use of wearables in medical care is increasing. Wearables can be used to monitor different variables, such as vital signs and physical activity. A crucial point for using wearables in oncology is if patients already under the burden of severe disease and oncological treatment can accept and adhere to the device. At present, there are no specific recommendations for the use of wearables in oncology, and little research has examined the purpose of using wearables in oncology. Objective: The purpose of this review is to explore the use of wearables in clinical trials during cancer treatment, with a special focus on adherence. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched prior and up to October 3, 2019, with no limitation in the date of publication. The search strategy was aimed at studies using wearables for monitoring adult patients with cancer during active antineoplastic treatment. Studies were screened independently by 2 reviewers by title and abstract, selected for inclusion and exclusion, and the full-text was assessed for eligibility. Data on study design, type of wearable used, primary outcome, adherence, and device outcome were extracted. Results were presented descriptively. Results: Our systematic search identified 1269 studies, of which 25 studies met our inclusion criteria. The types of cancer represented in the studies were breast (7/25), gastrointestinal (4/25), lung (4/25), and gynecologic (1/25); 9 studies had multiple types of cancer. Oncologic treatment was primarily chemotherapy (17/25). The study-type distribution was pilot/feasibility study (12/25), observational study (10/25), and randomized controlled trial (3/25). The median sample size was 40 patients (range 7-180). All studies used a wearable with an accelerometer. Adherence varied across studies, from 60%-100% for patients wearing the wearable/evaluable sensor data and 45%-94% for evaluable days, but was differently measured and reported. Of the 25 studies, the most frequent duration for planned monitoring with a wearable was 8-30 days (13/25). Topics for wearable outcomes were physical activity (19/25), circadian rhythm (8/25), sleep (6/25), and skin temperature (1/25). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were used in 17 studies; of the 17 PRO studies, only 9 studies reported correlations between the wearable outcome and the PRO. Conclusions: We found that definitions of outcome measures and adherence varied across studies, and limited consensus among studies existed on which variables to monitor during treatment. Less heterogeneity, better consensus in terms of the use of wearables, and established standards for the definitions of wearable outcomes and adherence would improve comparisons of outcomes from studies using wearables. Adherence, and the definition of such, seems crucial to conclude on data from wearable studies in oncology. Additionally, research using advanced wearable devices and active use of the data are encouraged to further explore the potential of wearables in oncology during treatment. Particularly, randomized clinical studies are warranted to create consensus on when and how to implement in oncological practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/22006

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Beauchamp, U. L., Pappot, H., & Holländer-Mieritz, C.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Holländer-Mieritz, Cecilie
ORCID
Venue
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2020-11-11
Volume
8
Issue
11
Pages
e22006
ISSN
2291-5222 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/22006
PMC
PMC7688381
OpenAlex
W3103444311
Cited by
110
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR mhealth and uhealth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia
  • Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
wearable devices, cancer clinical trials, antineoplastic therapy, device adherence, accelerometer, physical activity monitoring, circadian rhythm, sleep monitoring, patient-reported outcomes, chemotherapy, breast cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, lung cancer, gynecologic cancer, remote patient monitoring
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Adult, Female, Humans, Neoplasms, Exercise, Drug Monitoring, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Observational Studies as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review