BACKGROUND: Monitoring hydration is crucial for maintaining health and preventing dehydration. Despite the potential of wearable devices for continuous hydration monitoring, health research hasn't fully explored this application, and clear design guidelines are absent. This scoping review aimed to address this gap by analyzing current research trends and assessing the potential impact of wearable technologies for hydration monitoring.
OBJECTIVE: This review comprehensively examined recent advancements in wearable hydration-monitoring technologies, focusing on their capabilities, limitations, and research and prototype designs. It explored various sensors and technologies used to track hydration, compared their advantages and disadvantages, identified trends in wearable hydration-monitoring devices, evaluated their accuracy and reliability against established benchmarks, and reviewed commercially available products to bridge research findings and practical applications.
METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar for studies (2014-2024) on noninvasive wearable devices that used physiological biomarkers. Validation with human participants or comparisons with gold standards was required. Data extraction covered study characteristics, sensor technologies, validation methods, and commercial product analysis. In addition to academic research papers, gray literature was included through a Google Scholar search to investigate commercial products in the field of hydration monitoring. This approach ensured a broader perspective on technological advancements and market trends.
RESULTS: The review synthesized 63 articles selected from 156 included for full-text analysis. The literature was categorized based on sensor types, including electrical, optical, thermal, microwave, and multimodal sensors. Most studies (47/63, 75%) examined the effects of hydration on physiological parameters, with some (16/63, 25%) focusing on hydration status during physical activity or in specific environmental conditions. Commercially available products from 8 companies were also evaluated for their technological features, functionalities, and applications. The dominance of electrical sensors in research was highlighted due to their ease of use and integration into wearable devices. While fewer in number, optical sensors demonstrated higher precision and provided molecular-level insights. The emergence of multimodal sensors suggests a trend toward combining technologies to improve accuracy, as reflected by their increasing publication share. Other sensors, such as thermal and microwave-based sensors, occupied specialized niches. The growing acceptance of optical-based wearables in the market reflects their cost-to-precision effectiveness.
CONCLUSIONS: Wearable hydration-monitoring devices provide real-time assessments of hydration status, but challenges remain in ensuring their reliability, accuracy, and applicability across diverse populations and conditions. Future directions for research include standardized protocols, extensive clinical trials, sensor miniaturization, and enhanced wearability. Multimodal systems that integrate various sensors with artificial intelligence-driven analysis hold promise for personalized hydration management. This review offers detailed insights into the strengths and challenges of sensor technologies, paving the way for practical skin hydration-monitoring solutions.
