Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background: Neurological disorders substantially affect physical, cognitive, and psychosocial functioning. Smart wearable technologies may support objective assessment, monitoring and intervention in clinical and real-world settings, but applicability across neurological conditions and outcome domains remains unclear. Methods: This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR. Five databases—MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science—were searched for studies evaluating smart wearables for assessment, monitoring, or intervention in adults with neurological disorders. Methodological quality was assessed using NIH Study Quality Assessment Tools. Sustained adherence and structured patient-reported usability were evaluated. Results: Seventy-nine studies were included, with evidence concentrated in stroke and Parkinson’s disease. Most studies evaluated physical and motor outcomes, particularly gait, mobility, and activity; this emphasis remained after Poor-rated studies were excluded. Methodological quality was uneven: seven studies were Good, fifty-four Fair, and eighteen Poor, with observational cohort or cross-sectional designs predominating. Sustained adherence, structured patient-reported usability, and long-term real-world use were infrequently assessed. Conclusions: Smart wearables show the clearest applicability in physical and motor applications, predominantly assessment and monitoring, but evidence remains uneven, concentrated in stroke and Parkinson’s disease, and limited for other neurological conditions. Rigorous longitudinal real-world studies are needed, particularly in underrepresented conditions and physiological and psychosocial outcomes.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.