Home Monitoring Tools to Support Tracking Patients with Cardio–Cerebrovascular Diseases: Scientometric Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My major concern is the paper seems to lack detailed insight into the topic of each category of work and the techniques used, although it discusses some categories of the surveyed works and proposes some examples from 6.2 to 6.5, there is a lack of details and insights. Many topics remain to be discovered, such as the evolution of sensing hardware and software over time. For example, the development of advanced health sensors, from basic heart rate monitors to sophisticated wearables capable of detecting arrhythmias and sleep patterns, and their integration with AI and IoT technologies could provide a clearer picture of technological advancements and their impact on patient care. Other topics may include how AI tools are used in the area, the resource consumption of different tools, and the role of data privacy and security concerns in the adoption of home monitoring tools.

 

The study by different countries, journals, and authors seems too coarse-grained. It could be beneficial for the authors to study more in areas such as how regulatory environments, healthcare infrastructure, and socioeconomic factors impact the effectiveness and adoption of home monitoring tools across different regions.

Author Response

Comments 1:  My major concern is the paper seems to lack detailed insight into the topic of each category of work and the techniques used, although it discusses some categories of the surveyed works and proposes some examples from 6.2 to 6.5, there is a lack of details and insights. Many topics remain to be discovered, such as the evolution of sensing hardware and software over time. For example, the development of advanced health sensors, from basic heart rate monitors to sophisticated wearables capable of detecting arrhythmias and sleep patterns, and their integration with AI and IoT technologies could provide a clearer picture of technological advancements and their impact on patient care.

Response 1: Taking into account the reviewer's observations in points 6.1,6.2,6.3, 6.4 and 6.5. Information and infographics were included (as a suggestion from another reviewer), to explain the evolution in the different devices and technologies associated with the monitoring of this type of patients.

Comment 2:  Other topics may include how AI tools are used in the area, the resource consumption of different tools, and the role of data privacy and security concerns in the adoption of home monitoring tools.

Response 2: In the same way, taking into account the observations made by another reviewer, section 7.2 of the discussion was modified to cover both aspects of data privacy and security.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

 

Based on the article "Home Monitoring Tools to Support Tracking Patients with Cardio-Cerebrovascular Diseases: A Scientometric Review," here are some comments, corrections, and positive and negative aspects to help validate the publication:

 

Comments and Corrections

Title and Abstract:

 

Positive: The title is clear and informative, indicating the focus on home monitoring tools for cardio-cerebrovascular diseases.

Negative: The abstract could be more concise. Some information seems repetitive and could be simplified for better comprehension.

 

Introduction:

 

Positive: The introduction provides adequate context on the importance of telemedicine and home care, highlighting the benefits and necessity of these services.

Correction: Including more recent references would strengthen this section, especially considering the rapid advancements in IoT and telemedicine technology.

Methodology:

 

Positive: The methodology is well described, detailing the use of scientometric analysis and tools like the Tree of Science (ToS).

Correction: Better explaining the selection of databases and the inclusion/exclusion criteria for articles could improve the study's replicability.

Results:

 

Positive: The presentation of results based on the analogies of "roots," "trunk," and "branches" of the ToS is innovative and facilitates the understanding of scientific contributions.

Negative: Some charts and tables could be more readable with better formatting and more detailed captions.

 

Discussion:

 

Positive: The discussion effectively links the findings with trends in telemedicine and home monitoring research.

Negative: Some parts of the discussion seem to repeat points already mentioned in the results. Consolidating this information could make the text more fluid.

Conclusions:

 

Positive: The conclusions are well-articulated, highlighting the main findings and implications for practice and future research.

Negative: Including more specific recommendations for future research or practical implementation of the discussed technologies would be beneficial.

 

Positive Aspects

Relevance of the Topic: The topic is highly relevant, especially in the post-COVID context where telemedicine has gained increased importance.

Scientometric Approach: Using a scientometric approach to map contributions and trends is a significant strength of the study.

Clarity and Organization: The article is well-organized, with clearly defined sections that facilitate reading and understanding.

 

Negative Aspects

Detailing Methodology: Although the methodology is well described, greater clarity on the inclusion and exclusion criteria could improve the study's quality.

Repetitiveness: Some sections present repetitive information that could be condensed for better text flow.

 

References: Some references are relatively old. Updating with more recent research could enhance the article's relevance and timeliness.

Conclusion

Based on the points above, the article has a solid foundation for publication, especially due to the relevance of the topic and the innovative methodological approach. However, adjustments in text conciseness, methodological detailing, and updating references could significantly improve the manuscript's quality and clarity.

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract could be more concise. Some information seems repetitive and could be simplified for better comprehension

Response 1: Taking into account the observations made, the summary was condensed.

Comment 2: Including more recent references would strengthen this section, especially considering the rapid advancements in IoT and telemedicine technology

Response 2: More recent references were included to respond to this observation.

Comment 3:  Better explaining the selection of databases and the inclusion/exclusion criteria for articles could improve the study's replicability.

Response 3: The inclusion and exclusion criteria that were taken into account when carrying out the review were included.

Comment 4: Some charts and tables could be more readable with better formatting and more detailed captions.

Response 4: The graphics were generated again so that they could be more readable, the format of the tables was edited.

Comment 5: Some parts of the discussion seem to repeat points already mentioned in the results. Consolidating this information could make the text more fluid.

Response 5: Taking into account observations from other reviewers, the discussion section was modified to include other relevant aspects.

Comment 6: Including more specific recommendations for future research or practical implementation of the discussed technologies would be beneficial.

Response 6: The conclusion was modified to respond to what was requested by the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: IoT-3087237

Journal: IoT - MDPI

Title: Home Monitoring Tools to Support Tracking Patients with Cardio-Cerebrovascular Diseases: A Scentiometric Review

Authors: Elisabeth Restrepo-Parra  , Paola Patricia Ariza-Colpas *  , Laura Valentina Torres-Bonilla , Marlon Alberto Piñeres-Melo , Miguel Alberto Urina-Triana * , Shariq Butt-Aziz

 

 

Reviewer Comments:

This review article presents a scientometric analysis to consolidate and highlight key contributions in home care and telemedicine, aiming to improve health coverage and quality by organizing dispersed literature and identifying significant trends and research. Overall, this paper is well-organized and well-written. However, the authors need to address the following comments:

 

 

1- Overly Broad Scope:

The review covers a wide range of topics within homecare and telemedicine, which might dilute the focus. Narrowing the scope to specific areas, such as a particular disease or technology, could provide a more detailed and valuable analysis.

 

2- Insufficient Coverage of AI and IoT Integration:

While the paper discusses AI and IoT integration, it lacks in-depth analysis and examples of real-world applications. Providing specific case studies or examples of successful implementations would enhance the discussion of these technologies' impact.

 

3- Insufficient Analysis of Technological Challenges:

The paper briefly mentions the integration of AI and IoT but does not delve into the technological challenges and limitations faced in implementing these systems. Discussing these challenges and potential solutions would give a more balanced perspective on the feasibility of these technologies.

 

4- Limited Consideration of Patient Privacy and Data Security:

The review does not address concerns related to patient privacy and data security, which are crucial in telemedicine and remote monitoring. Including a section on how these issues are being tackled would add depth to the analysis and highlight the importance of secure data management.

 

5- Limited Discussion on Post-COVID Impacts:

The paper mentions the post-COVID era but does not thoroughly explore how the pandemic has specifically influenced home monitoring and telemedicine practices. Including a dedicated section on post-COVID changes and their implications would add significant value.

 

6- Underrepresentation of Socioeconomic Factors:

The paper does not adequately consider the socioeconomic factors that affect the adoption and effectiveness of home monitoring tools and telemedicine. Discussing how factors such as cost, accessibility, and digital literacy impact the use of these technologies would provide a more holistic view.

 

7- Absence of Future Research Directions:

While the review identifies current trends and key contributions, it does not suggest directions for future research. Including a section on gaps in the current literature and potential areas for future investigation would be valuable for researchers looking to advance the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Comment 1: The review covers a wide range of topics within homecare and telemedicine, which might dilute the focus. Narrowing the scope to specific areas, such as a particular disease or technology, could provide a more detailed and valuable analysis.

Response 1: Cardio-cerebrovascular diseases have been selected in general because they constitute one of the pathologies that cause the most deaths worldwide and throughout the text the generation of new technologies focused on this type of pathologies is explained.

Comment 2:  While the paper discusses AI and IoT integration, it lacks in-depth analysis and examples of real-world applications. Providing specific case studies or examples of successful implementations would enhance the discussion of these technologies' impact.

Response 2:  Sections 6.1.a to 6.5 have been modified. including the evolution and references to successful implementation cases.

Comment 3: The paper briefly mentions the integration of AI and IoT but does not delve into the technological challenges and limitations faced in implementing these systems. Discussing these challenges and potential solutions would give a more balanced perspective on the feasibility of these technologies

Response 3: The discussion section has been edited to include different limitations that may arise when implementing these solutions in the real world.

Comment 4: The review does not address concerns related to patient privacy and data security, which are crucial in telemedicine and remote monitoring. Including a section on how these issues are being tackled would add depth to the analysis and highlight the importance of secure data management

Response 4: This observation has been addressed in the discussion section

Comment 5: The paper mentions the post-COVID era but does not thoroughly explore how the pandemic has specifically influenced home monitoring and telemedicine practices. Including a dedicated section on post-COVID changes and their implications would add significant value.

Response 5: This observation has been addressed in the discussion section.

Comment 6:  The paper does not adequately consider the socioeconomic factors that affect the adoption and effectiveness of home monitoring tools and telemedicine. Discussing how factors such as cost, accessibility, and digital literacy impact the use of these technologies would provide a more holistic view.

Response 6: This observation has been addressed in the discussion section.

Comment 7: While the review identifies current trends and key contributions, it does not suggest directions for future research. Including a section on gaps in the current literature and potential areas for future investigation would be valuable for researchers looking to advance the field.

Response 7: The conclusions section has been modified to include the reviewer's recommendations

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the revision has addressed my previous comments, I am OK with acceptance. Please double-check on typos in the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors modify the manuscript