Wearable sensors in paediatric neurology.

One person searched one database and selected papers, so relevant studies may have been missed and the review is not systematic. Eight shortlisted papers could not be retrieved. Many of the included studies had small numbers of participants and could not validate their results. Most studies were short recordings, sometimes just one day, which can be biased by a child's motivation or environment rather than reflecting typical function. Compliance issues such as discomfort, forgetting to wear devices, and signal loss affected data quality across many studies. Optical sensors like photoplethysmography performed less reliably in individuals with darker skin tones, raising equity concerns. The review reports what sensors measured in research studies, not whether using them changed patient outcomes or treatment decisions.

One author is employed by Sysnav, a company that makes a wearable sensor used in the reviewed studies. Another author has received consultancy fees from Roche, Biogen, PepGen, Dyne Therapeutics, WaveLife, and Sysnav in the context of digital outcome measures. The authors state the work received no specific funding.

Do not read this as evidence that wearable sensors have changed routine paediatric care. The review itself states most work is still proving feasibility and reliability, and that more research is needed to show sensor-based interventions improve long-term patient outcomes. The one clear clinical shift is the regulatory approval of SV95C as a trial endpoint in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which does not mean sensors are validated diagnostic tools for your other patients.