Wearable health monitoring: wave of the future or waste of time?

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is responsible for over 400,000 hospitalizations in the United States (US) each year. This costs the US health system over 4 billion each year. New smartwatches can constantly monitor pulse, oxygen saturation, and even heart rhythm. The FDA has provided clearance for select smartwatches to detect arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation. FINDINGS: These devices are not currently widely implemented as diagnostic tools. In this review, we delve into the mechanism of how smartwatches work as healthcare tools and how they capture health data. Additionally, we analyze the reliability of the data collected by smartwatches and the accuracy of their sensors in monitoring health parameters. Moreover, we explore the accessibility of smartwatches as healthcare tools and their potential to promote self-care among individuals. Finally, we assess the outcomes of using smartwatches in healthcare, including the limited studies on the clinical effects and barriers to uptake by the community. CONCLUSION: Although smartwatches are accurate for the detection of atrial fibrillation, they still face many hurdles, including access to aging populations and trust in the medical community.

Jaffe-Campanacci syndrome; a case series and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Jaffe-Campanacci syndrome is a rare syndrome, characterized by multiple non-ossifying fibromas (NOF) and cafe-au-lait patches. The name was coined in 1982 by Mirra after Jaffe who first described the case in 1958. Although it's suggested there is a relation with Neurofibromatosis type 1, there is still no consensus on whether Jaffe-Campanacci syndrome is a subtype or variant of neurofibromatosis-1(NF-1). CASE PRESENTATION: In this article, we present a case series of 2 patients. The first case is a 13-year-old male with Jaffe-Campanacci syndrome who presented with a distal femur fracture. His father had positive features of both Jaffe-Campanacci syndrome and NF-1, while his sister only had features of NF-1, so we presented both. CONCLUSION: Jaffe-Campanacci has a clear relationship with type 1 neurofibromatosis, which still has to be genetically established. Due to the presence of several large non-ossifying fibromas of the long bones, it is linked to a significant risk of pathological fractures. We concur with previous authors, that an osseous screening program should be performed for all patients with newly diagnosed type 1 neurofibromatosis, to identify non-ossifying fibromas and assess the potential for pathological fracture. Moreover, siblings of patients with NF-1 should be screened for multiple NOFs that may carry a high risk of pathological fractures.

Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability.

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based practices as they consolidate research findings to inform decision-making. However, it is essential to assess the quality of systematic reviews to prevent biased or inaccurate conclusions. This paper underscores the importance of adhering to recognized guidelines, such as the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook. These recommendations advocate for systematic approaches and emphasize the documentation of critical components, including the search strategy and study selection. A thorough evaluation of methodologies, research quality, and overall evidence strength is essential during the appraisal process. Identifying potential sources of bias and review limitations, such as selective reporting or trial heterogeneity, is facilitated by tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The assessment of included studies emphasizes formulating clear research questions and employing appropriate search strategies to construct robust reviews. Relevance and bias reduction are ensured through meticulous selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Accurate data synthesis, including appropriate data extraction and analysis, is necessary for drawing reliable conclusions. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for aggregating trial findings, improves the precision of treatment impact estimates. Systematic reviews should consider crucial factors such as addressing biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and acknowledging review and methodological limitations. This paper aims to enhance the reliability of systematic reviews, ultimately improving decision-making in healthcare, public policy, and other domains. It provides academics, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, empowering them to make well-informed decisions based on robust data.