Wearables and smartphones for modifiable risk factors in metabolic health: a scoping review protocol ==================================================================================================== * Victoria Brügger * Tobias Kowatsch * Mia Jovanova ## Abstract **Background** Metabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, contribute significantly to global mortality and disability. Wearable devices and smartphones increasingly track physiological and lifestyle risk factors and can improve the management of metabolic diseases. However, the absence of clear guidelines for deriving meaningful signals from these devices often hampers cross-study comparisons. **Objective** Thus, this scoping review protocol aims to systematically overview the current empirical literature on how wearables and smartphones are used to measure modifiable risk factors associated with metabolic diseases. **Methods** We will conduct a scoping review to overview how wearables and smartphones measure modifiable risk factors related to metabolic diseases. We will search six databases (Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) from 2019 to 2024, with search terms related to wearables, smartphones, and modifiable risk factors associated with metabolic diseases. We will apply the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) and Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology. Eligible studies will use smartphones and/or wearables (worn on the wrist, finger, arm, hip, and chest) to track physiological and/or lifestyle factors related to metabolic diseases. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for inclusion. Data will be extracted using a standardized form, and the findings will be synthesized and reported qualitatively and quantitatively. **Results** The study is expected to identify potential gaps in measuring modifiable risk factors in current digital metabolic health research. Results are expected to inform more standardized guidelines on wearable and smartphone-based measurements to aid cross-study comparison. The final report is planned for submission to an indexed journal. **Conclusions** This review is among the first to systematically overview the current landscape on how wearables and smartphones are used to measure modifiable risk factors associated with metabolic diseases. Keywords * wearables * smartphones * mHealth * metabolic diseases * risk factors * lifestyle * physiological * metabolic health ## Introduction Non-communicable diseases (NCD) globally lead to 41 million deaths per year and are estimated to cost, on average, more than US$ 2 trillion per year [1,2]. A large portion of NCD-related burden is attributed to a growing prevalence of metabolic diseases, namely type 2 diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and, more recently, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [3,4]. Metabolic diseases are projected to increase at an alarming rate, such that the number of people with diabetes alone is expected to double from 529 million in 2021 to 1.3 billion in 2050, with projected health expenditure above US$ 1054 billion by 2045 [5]. A large body of research has shown that metabolic diseases, e.g., type 2 diabetes, are influenced by a network of modifiable factors. These include lifestyle determinants (i.e., nutrition, physical activity, sleep, stress, and substance abuse) and physiological markers (i.e., blood sugar, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol) [6–10]. Following a complex systems perspective, modifiable factors interact dynamically [11] and together shape disease outcomes over time, with up to 70% of cardiovascular disease cases and mortality attributed to modifiable risk factors [12] [9]. In parallel, wearables (i.e., devices worn on the wrist, finger, arm, and chest) and smartphones are increasingly used to track modifiable risk factors in daily life with improved precision and accuracy [13]. These devices offer key advantages over lab-based visits, such as continuous and person-specific data collection in (near) real-time. For instance, smartwatches can track physical activity and sleep patterns with minimal burden [15]. Further, mobile apps can detect nutrition via image-based food recognition [14], ecologic momentary assessment, or short surveys [16] in free-living conditions. These high-dimensional, longitudinal data can trigger personalized lifestyle interventions by deploying recommendations on nutrition, sleep, and physical activity [15,16]. By enabling remote monitoring, wearables, and smartphones can improve access to care and reduce the costs of metabolic disease management [17,18] compared to standard lab-based clinical approaches [22]. While studies increasingly demonstrate the promise of wearables for tracking and managing metabolic diseases [19], key gaps remain in the newly evolving digital metabolic health sphere. Here, we focus on two. First, recent perspectives highlight the importance of tracking multi-modal vs. single risk factors [12] for a more comprehensive lens into an individual’s metabolic health profile [20]. However, the extent to which different studies focus on one vs. more risk factors in digital metabolic health contexts remains unclear. Second, alongside the proliferation of studies using wearables and smartphones, there are concerns regarding the comparability of data even when measuring the same risk factors [21]. Specifically, there is growing evidence of incommensurability, with different researchers employing different operationalizations (or units) when studying the same risk factor (i.e., physical inactivity), thus making direct cross-study comparisons challenging. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to track between-study effects [22] and presents a barrier to building cumulative and generalizable knowledge in this young and rapidly evolving field [23]. Motivated by these gaps, scoping the landscape of what risk factors are measured, and how, is essential for advancing the use of wearables and smartphones in digital metabolic health research. Thus far, recent work has begun to overview the use of different wearable technologies in cardiometabolic diseases [23] and the role of digital health technologies in metabolic disorders among older adults, more broadly [25]. However, to our knowledge, no studies have specifically focused on the landscape of modifiable risk factors. Thus, we aim to address the following questions: 1. Which modifiable risk factors are most often studied in wearable and smartphone-based metabolic health research? 2. To what extent are measures of modifiable risk factors consistent across studies, particularly in measurement methods? Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the current risk factor landscape is crucial to inform more consistent measurement guidelines. Given the broad nature of the inquiry and the emerging status of the field, we deemed a scoping review the most appropriate method for investigating these research questions. ## Methods This scoping review follows the five-stage approach by Arksey and O’Malley [24]: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant literature, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the articles. To guarantee adherence to guidelines, we adopt the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist [25]. ### Stage 1: identifying the research question Motivated by gaps in prior work [22,26] and a lack of overview in the field, this scoping review aims to systematically scope current research regarding (1) which modifiable risk factors are most often studied (vs. understudied) in wearable and smartphone-based metabolic health research, and (2) to what extent are measures of modifiable risk factors consistent across studies in terms of measurement methods and units. ### Stage 2: identifying relevant studies Drawing on the most recent reviews in the wearable, digital health, and metabolic health domains [22,26], we identified key search terms capturing wearables and/or smartphones and prominent modifiable risk factors associated with metabolic diseases [6]. See Appendix Table S1 for a full list of key search terms. We will search the following six major databases: Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore. The articles identified by the search will be imported into the collaborative, systematic review tool Rayyan [27]. ### Stage 3: study selection: inclusion and exclusion criteria Eligible studies will be peer-reviewed, written in English, published in 2019 and after (to reflect the most current digital metabolic health literature [28]); and will include a full-text version. In cases where no full text is available, authors will be contacted with a waiting period of 7 days between each contact before study exclusion. Given our research aims, eligible studies will (1) measure lifestyle and physiological factors relevant to metabolic health using (2) smartphones and/or wearables, which are worn on the wrist, finger, arm, and chest, and (3) analyze the generated wearable/smartphone data for outcome assessment. Qualitative studies will be excluded. Building on prior work [28], we will focus only on wearable devices that cost <€500 (US $570) per device hardware to ensure that wearables are available commercially, intended for consumers, and potentially allow for scalability. We will include membership-based devices. ### Step 4: charting the data For each study deemed eligible and included in the review, relevant information will be extracted and documented using a standardized data charting form. Two reviewers will manually chart the extracted information, and a third reviewer will resolve discrepancies. See Table 2 for the data charting form. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/15/2024.04.15.24305819/T1) Table 1. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/15/2024.04.15.24305819/T2) Table 2. Data Charting Form. a ### Stage 5: collating, summarizing, and reporting the results Following the data charting process outlined in Table 2, the gathered data will be synthesized and summarized in descriptive tables and figures. According to our first research question, we will categorize the modifiable risk factors per each study. Next, we will aggregate the overall prevalence of each modifiable risk factor and the proportion of studies that measure single or multiple modifiable risk factors. Based on our second question, we will describe the measures (or units) used to operationalize the most prevalent factors, and we will overview the range in measurement, i.e., how similarly risk factors are measured across studies. The overall findings will be summarized and communicated through tables and figures. ## Discussion To our knowledge, this scoping review is among the first to comprehensively summarize the current landscape of key modifiable risk factors in digital metabolic health research, particularly how consistently risk factors are measured across studies. This research will contribute to existing knowledge by systematically scoping the variability in wearable and smartphone-based signals, thus paving the way for improved measurement standards and comparability across studies. This scoping review will have several limitations, including literature solely in English, which leads to language bias, and limited scope to quantitative empirical studies, which may omit more recent qualitative or industry developments in digital metabolic health. Our results will be specific to wearables that are worn on the body (i.e., we will exclude breath analyzers). Furthermore, the lack of consensus on metabolic health [30] may result in diverse definitions of metabolic risk factors, suggesting the possibility of omission of some factors. Nonetheless, based on prior work, we have identified a comprehensive list of various modifiable risk factors in metabolic health, including lifestyle behaviors and physiological markers [31–38]. The results and findings of this study will be disseminated through publication in relevant journals and presentation at conferences. No ethics approval is required for this study as it does not involve conducting trials or collecting primary data. ## Conclusion Overall, consolidating the current literature will be a valuable contribution to the field, aiding in describing the prevalence of different risk factors and identifying gaps in measurement. This review also presents new opportunities for establishing standards to enhance the replicability and generalizability of measures in digital metabolic health research. ## Data Availability N/A ## Author Contributions VB and MJ conceived the idea. VB wrote the first version of the manuscript. TK and MJ provided feedback on the manuscript and revised it. TK and MJ provided methodological guidance. ## Conflicts of Interest None declared. ## Multimedia Appendix 1 View this table: [Table S1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/15/2024.04.15.24305819/T3) Table S1. Search Strategy/Queries ## Acknowledgments VB, TK, and MJ are affiliated with the Centre for Digital Health Interventions, a joint initiative of the Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, the Department of Management, Technology, and Economics at ETH Zurich, and the Institute of Technology Management and School of Medicine at the University of St.Gallen, Centre for Digital Health Interventions is funded in part by Mavie Next, an Austrian health care provider, CSS, a Swiss health insurer, and MTIP, a growth equity firm. TK was also a co-founder of Pathmate Technologies, a university spin-off company that creates and delivers digital clinical pathways. However, Mavie Next, CSS, MTIP or Pathmate Technologies were involved in this protocol. All other authors have no conflicting interests. ## Abbreviations NCD : noncommunicable disease * Received April 15, 2024. * Revision received April 15, 2024. * Accepted April 15, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.World Health Organization Noncommunicable Diseases: Mortality; 2023; 2. 2.Bloom, D.E.; Cafiero, E.; Jané-Llopis, E.; Abrahams-Gessel, S.; Bloom, L.R.; Fathima, S.; Feigl, A.B.; Gaziano, T.; Hamandi, A.; Mowafi, M. The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases; Program on the Global Demography of Aging, 2012; 3. 3.Chew, N.W.S.; Ng, C.H.; Tan, D.J.H.; Kong, G.; Lin, C.; Chin, Y.H.; Lim, W.H.; Huang, D.Q.; Quek, J.; Fu, C.E. The Global Burden of Metabolic Disease: Data from 2000 to 2019. Cell Metab 2023, 35, 414–428. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.cmet.2023.02.003&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=36889281&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 4. 4.Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (GBD 2019); Seattle, United States, 2020; 5. 5.Ong, K.L.; Stafford, L.K.; McLaughlin, S.A.; Boyko, E.J.; Vollset, S.E.; Smith, A.E.; Dalton, B.E.; Duprey, J.; Cruz, J.A.; Hagins, H.; et al. Global, Regional, and National Burden of Diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with Projections of Prevalence to 2050: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The Lancet 2023, 402, 203–234, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37356446&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 6. 6.Mohamed, S.M.; Shalaby, M.A.; El-Shiekh, R.A.; El-Banna, H.A.; Emam, S.R.; Bakr, A.F. Metabolic Syndrome: Risk Factors, Diagnosis, Pathogenesis, and Management with Natural Approaches. Food Chemistry Advances 2023, 3. 7. 7.Ali, N.; Samadder, M.; Shourove, J.H.; Taher, A.; Islam, F. Prevalence and Factors Associated with Metabolic Syndrome in University Students and Academic Staff in Bangladesh. Sci Rep 2023, 13, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-46943-x. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41598-023-46943-x&link_type=DOI) 8. 8.Yusuf, S.; Joseph, P.; Rangarajan, S.; Islam, S.; Mente, A.; Hystad, P.; Brauer, M.; Kutty, V.R.; Gupta, R.; Wielgosz, A.; et al. Modifiable Risk Factors, Cardiovascular Disease, and Mortality in 155 722 Individuals from 21 High-Income, Middle Income, and Low-Income Countries (PURE): A Prospective Cohort Study. The Lancet 2020, 395, 795–808, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31492503&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 9. 9.Adams, M.L.; Grandpre, J.; Katz, D.L.; Shenson, D. The Impact of Key Modifiable Risk Factors on Leading Chronic Conditions. Prev Med (Baltim) 2019, 120, 113–118. 10. 10.Gillett, M.; Royle, P.; Snaith, A.; Scotland, G.; Poobalan, A.S.; Imamura, M.; Black, C.; Boroujerdi, M.; Jick, S.; Wyness, L. Non-Pharmacological Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Diabetes in People with Impaired Glucose Regulation: A Systematic Review and Economic Evaluation. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) 2012, 16. 11. 11.Foraita, R.; Witte, J.; Börnhorst, C.; Gwozdz, W.; Pala, V.; Lissner, L.; Lauria, F.; Reisch, L.A.; Molnár, D.; De Henauw, S. A Longitudinal Causal Graph Analysis Investigating Modifiable Risk Factors and Obesity in a European Cohort of Children and Adolescents. Sci Rep 2024, 14, 6822. 12. 12.Castro, R.; Ribeiro-Alves, M.; Oliveira, C.; Romero, C.P.; Perazzo, H.; Simjanoski, M.; Kapciznki, F.; Balanzá Martínez, V.; De Boni, R.B. What Are We Measuring When We Evaluate Digital Interventions for Improving Lifestyle? A Scoping Meta-Review. Front Public Health 2022, 9. 13. 13.Wall, C.; Hetherington, V.; Godfrey, A. Beyond the Clinic: The Rise of Wearables and Smartphones in Decentralising Healthcare. NPJ Digit Med 2023, 6. 14. 14.Dalakleidi, K. V; Papadelli, M.; Kapolos, I.; Papadimitriou, K. Applying Image-Based Food-Recognition Systems on Dietary Assessment: A Systematic Review. Advances in Nutrition 2022, 13, 2590–2619. 15. 15.Hodkinson, A.; Kontopantelis, E.; Adeniji, C.; Van Marwijk, H.; McMillian, B.; Bower, P.; Panagioti, M. Interventions Using Wearable Physical Activity Trackers among Adults with Cardiometabolic Conditions A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2021, 4. 16. 16.Sim, I. Mobile Devices and Health. New England Journal of Medicine 2019, 381, 956–968. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMra1806949&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 17. 17.Taylor, M.L.; Thomas, E.E.; Snoswell, C.L.; Smith, A.C.; Caffery, L.J. Does Remote Patient Monitoring Reduce Acute Care Use? A Systematic Review. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e040232. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTEvMy9lMDQwMjMyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDQvMTUvMjAyNC4wNC4xNS4yNDMwNTgxOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 18. 18.Liverani, M.; Ir, P.; Perel, P.; Khan, M.; Balabanova, D.; Wiseman, V. Assessing the Potential of Wearable Health Monitors for Health System Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Prospective Study of Technology Adoption in Cambodia. Health Policy Plan 2022, 37, 943–951. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/heapol/czac019&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Natalucci, V.; Marmondi, F.; Biraghi, M.; Bonato, M. The Effectiveness of Wearable Devices in Non-Communicable Diseases to Manage Physical Activity and Nutrition: Where We Are? Nutrients 2023, 15, 913. 20. 20.Moshawrab, M.; Adda, M.; Bouzouane, A.; Ibrahim, H.; Raad, A. Smart Wearables for the Detection of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review. Sensors 2023, 23. 21. 21.Rodriguez-León, C.; Villalonga, C.; Munoz-Torres, M.; Ruiz, J.R.; Banos, O. Mobile and Wearable Technology for the Monitoring of Diabetes-Related Parameters: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021, 9. 22. 22.Lee, M.A.; Song, M.K.; Bessette, H.; Roberts Davis, M.; Tyner, T.E.; Reid, A. Use of Wearables for Monitoring Cardiometabolic Health: A Systematic Review. Int J Med Inform 2023, 179. 23. 23.Yarkoni, T. The Generalizability Crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2022, 45, doi:10.1017/S0140525X20001685. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1017/S0140525X20001685&link_type=DOI) 24. 24.Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice 2005, 8, 19–32, doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/1364557032000119616&link_type=DOI) 25. 25.Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018, 169, 467–473. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M18-0850&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30178033&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 26. 26.Keshet, A.; Reicher, L.; Bar, N.; Segal, E. Wearable and Digital Devices to Monitor and Treat Metabolic Diseases. Nat Metab 2023, 5, 563–571, doi:10.1038/s42255-023-00778-y. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s42255-023-00778-y&link_type=DOI) 27. 27.Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev 2016, 5, 210, doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 28. 28.Huhn, S.; Axt, M.; Gunga, H.C.; Maggioni, M.A.; Munga, S.; Obor, D.; Sié, A.; Boudo, V.; Bunker, A.; Sauerborn, R.; et al. The Impact of Wearable Technologies in Health Research: Scoping Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022, 10. 29. 29.Huynh, P.; Fleisch, E.; Brändle, M.; Kowatsch, T.; Jovanova, M. Digital Health Technologies for Metabolic Disorders in Older Adults: A Scoping Review Protocol 2 3., doi:10.1101/2024.02.26.24303372. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyNC4wMi4yNi4yNDMwMzM3MnYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDQvMTUvMjAyNC4wNC4xNS4yNDMwNTgxOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 30. 30.Fan, Y.; Pedersen, O. Gut Microbiota in Human Metabolic Health and Disease. Nat Rev Microbiol 2021, 19, 55–71. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41579-020-0433-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 31. 31.Motahari-Nezhad, H.; Fgaier, M.; Mahdi Abid, M.; Péntek, M.; Gulácsi, L.; Zrubka, Z. Digital Biomarker–Based Studies: Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022, 10, e35722. 32. 32.Sibbritt, D.; Peng, W.; Lauche, R.; Ferguson, C.; Frawley, J.; Adams, J. Efficacy of Acupuncture for Lifestyle Risk Factors for Stroke: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 2018, 13, e0206288. 33. 33.Fernández-Cao, J.C.; Aparicio, E. Design, Development and Validation of Food Frequency Questionnaires for the Diabetic Population: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e058831. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTIvOS9lMDU4ODMxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDQvMTUvMjAyNC4wNC4xNS4yNDMwNTgxOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 34. 34.Mammen, G.; Faulkner, G. Physical Activity and the Prevention of Depression: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies. Am J Prev Med 2013, 45, 649–657. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24139780&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F04%2F15%2F2024.04.15.24305819.atom) 35. 35.Thompson, T.P.; Taylor, A.H.; Wanner, A.; Husk, K.; Wei, Y.; Creanor, S.; Kandiyali, R.; Neale, J.; Sinclair, J.; Nasser, M. Physical Activity and the Prevention, Reduction, and Treatment of Alcohol and/or Substance Use across the Lifespan (The PHASE Review): Protocol for a Systematic Review. Syst Rev 2018, 7, 1–15. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13643-018-0836-0&link_type=DOI) 36. 36.McCarter, S.J.; Hagen, P.T.; Louis, E.K.S.; Rieck, T.M.; Haider, C.R.; Holmes, D.R.; Morgenthaler, T.I. Physiological Markers of Sleep Quality: A Scoping Review. Sleep Med Rev 2022, 64, 101657. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101657&link_type=DOI) 37. 37.Sawadogo, W.; Tsegaye, M.; Gizaw, A.; Adera, T. Overweight and Obesity as Risk Factors for COVID-19-Associated Hospitalisations and Death: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ Nutr Prev Health 2022, 5, 10. 38. 38.Hu, R.; van Velthoven, M.H.; Meinert, E. Perspectives of People Who Are Overweight and Obese on Using Wearable Technology for Weight Management: Systematic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2020, 8, e12651.