This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

64/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 64 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Forty-eight studies from 18,456 screened abstracts (Dementia: n = 2,516, Control: n = 1,224) met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Nineteen of these studies were included in one or multiple meta-analyses (Dementia: n = 617, Control: n = 406). Participants with dementia demonstrated lower levels of daily activity (standardized mean difference (SMD), -1.60; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.55), decreased sleep efficiency (SMD, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.16), and greater intradaily circadian variability (SMD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65) than controls, among other measures. Statistical between-study heterogeneity was observed, possibly due to variation in testing duration, device type or patient setting. Conclusions and Relevance: Digitally captured data using wearable devices revealed that adults with dementia were less active, demonstrated increased fragmentation of their sleep-wake cycle and a loss of typical diurnal variation in circadian rhythm as compared to controls.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: High

This is a pooled review of 2,516 participants. This review and meta-analysis found that adults with dementia were less active, had decreased sleep efficiency, and greater circadian variability than controls, based on wearable device data. It describes monitoring findings, not a treatment, cure, or prevention.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Cote, A. C., Phelps, R. J., Kabiri, N. S., Bhangu, J. S., & Thomas, K. K. (2020). Evaluation of Wearable Technology in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in medicine. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.501104

Vancouver

Cote AC, Phelps RJ, Kabiri NS, Bhangu JS, Thomas KK. Evaluation of Wearable Technology in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in medicine. 2020. doi:10.3389/fmed.2020.501104. PMID: 33505979.

BibTeX

@article{cote2020-33505979,
  author  = {Cote, A. C. and Phelps, R. J. and Kabiri, N. S. and Bhangu, J. S. and Thomas, K. K.},
  title   = {{Evaluation of Wearable Technology in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis}},
  journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.3389/fmed.2020.501104},
  pmid    = {33505979},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.501104}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record lists 2,516 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Forty-eight studies from 18,456 screened abstracts (Dementia: n = 2,516, Control: n = 1,224) met inclusion criteria for the systematic review.
Nineteen of these studies were included in one or multiple meta-analyses (Dementia: n = 617, Control: n = 406).
Participants with dementia demonstrated lower levels of daily activity (standardized mean difference (SMD), -1.60; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.55), decreased sleep efficiency (SMD, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.16), and greater intradaily circadian variability (SMD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65) than controls, among other measures.
Statistical between-study heterogeneity was observed, possibly due to variation in testing duration, device type or patient setting.
Conclusions and Relevance: Digitally captured data using wearable devices revealed that adults with dementia were less active, demonstrated increased fragmentation of their sleep-wake cycle and a loss of typical diurnal variation in circadian rhythm as compared to controls.

Why it matters

This review and meta-analysis found that adults with dementia were less active, had decreased sleep efficiency, and greater circadian variability than controls, based on wearable device data. It describes monitoring findings, not a treatment, cure, or prevention.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Participants2,516
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 64/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 61 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in medicine)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	Frontiers in Medicine: journal h-index 149 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	2,516 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	4 / 7	Cited 58 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	7.2 citations a year over 8 year(s) since 2020
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 40 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Kevin “Kip” Thomas holds only 3 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Boston University: institution h-index 1,456 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33505979)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	61 / 96	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 61 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100.
Total	64 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 15.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Digital health tools from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →