Wearable Devices in Healthcare Beyond the One-Size-Fits All Paradigm

Wearable devices (WDs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows to enable continuous, non-invasive vital signs monitoring. Combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI), these systems can shift clinical monitoring from being reactive to predictive, allowing for earlier detection of deterioration and more personalized interventions. The value of these technologies lies not in absolute measurements, but in detecting physiological parameters trends relative to each patient's baseline. Such a trend-based approach enables real-time prediction of deterioration, enhancing patient safety and continuity of care. However, despite their shared multiparametric capabilities, WDs are not interchangeable. This narrative review analyzes nine clinically validated devices, Radius VSM<sup>®</sup> (Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA), BioButton<sup>®</sup> (BioIntelliSense Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA. Distributed by Medtronic), Portrait Mobile<sup>®</sup> (GE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA), VitalPatch<sup>®</sup> (VitalConnect Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), CardioWatch 287-2<sup>®</sup> (Corsano Health B.V., The Hague, The Netherlands. Distributed by Medtronic), Cosinuss C-Med Alpha<sup>®</sup> (Cosinuss Gmb, Munich, Germany), SensiumVitals<sup>®</sup> (Sensium Healthcare Limited, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), Isansys Lifetouch<sup>®</sup> (Isansys Lifecare Ltd., Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), and CheckPoint Cardio<sup>®</sup> (CheckPoint R&D LTD., Kazanlak, Bulgaria), highlighting how differences in sensor configurations, battery life, connectivity, and validation contexts influence their suitability across various clinical environments. Rather than establishing a hierarchy of technical superiority, this review emphasizes the importance of context-driven selection, considering care setting, patient profile, infrastructure requirements, and interoperability. Each device demonstrates strengths and limitations depending on patient population and operational demands, ranging from perioperative, post-operative, emergency, or post-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) settings. The findings support a tailored approach to WD implementation, where matching device capabilities to clinical needs is key to maximizing utility, safety, and efficiency.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Sensors
Published
2025-10-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/s25206472
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.03
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Wearable Devices in Healthcare Beyond the One-Size-Fits All Paradigm

Anna Fornaciari, Valentina Bellini, Francesco Marconi, Maurice Madeo et al.
5 citations
Sensors
Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
10.03
article

Wearable Devices in Healthcare Beyond the One-Size-Fits All Paradigm

Anna Fornaciari, Valentina Bellini, Francesco Marconi, Maurice Madeo, Elena Giovanna Bignami, Stefano Fedele, Matteo Panizzi, Erika Cerdelli
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Wearable devices (WDs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows to enable continuous, non-invasive vital signs monitoring. Combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI), these systems can shift clinical monitoring from being reactive to predictive, allowing for earlier detection of deterioration and more personalized interventions. The value of these technologies lies not in absolute measurements, but in detecting physiological parameters trends relative to each patient's baseline. Such a trend-based approach enables real-time prediction of deterioration, enhancing patient safety and continuity of care. However, despite their shared multiparametric capabilities, WDs are not interchangeable. This narrative review analyzes nine clinically validated devices, Radius VSM<sup>®</sup> (Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA), BioButton<sup>®</sup> (BioIntelliSense Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA. Distributed by Medtronic), Portrait Mobile<sup>®</sup> (GE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA), VitalPatch<sup>®</sup> (VitalConnect Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), CardioWatch 287-2<sup>®</sup> (Corsano Health B.V., The Hague, The Netherlands. Distributed by Medtronic), Cosinuss C-Med Alpha<sup>®</sup> (Cosinuss Gmb, Munich, Germany), SensiumVitals<sup>®</sup> (Sensium Healthcare Limited, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), Isansys Lifetouch<sup>®</sup> (Isansys Lifecare Ltd., Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), and CheckPoint Cardio<sup>®</sup> (CheckPoint R&D LTD., Kazanlak, Bulgaria), highlighting how differences in sensor configurations, battery life, connectivity, and validation contexts influence their suitability across various clinical environments. Rather than establishing a hierarchy of technical superiority, this review emphasizes the importance of context-driven selection, considering care setting, patient profile, infrastructure requirements, and interoperability. Each device demonstrates strengths and limitations depending on patient population and operational demands, ranging from perioperative, post-operative, emergency, or post-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) settings. The findings support a tailored approach to WD implementation, where matching device capabilities to clinical needs is key to maximizing utility, safety, and efficiency.

SensorsVol. 25(20)
University of Parma (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
10.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.