4.6 Review

Internet of Medical Things in the COVID-19 Era: A Systematic Literature Review

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 14, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su141912637

Keywords

Internet of Things; COVID-19; application; pandemic; Internet of Medical Things

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The medical industry has embraced technology, particularly in the form of the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT), to improve accuracy and efficiency, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper evaluates recent studies in the IoMT domain using the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology and focuses on factors such as delay, performance, accuracy, security, and cost.
In recent years, the medical industry has rapidly modernized, incorporating technology to aid in accelerating and simplifying procedures for better accuracy. This technology is becoming more interconnected to create a larger network known as the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) that can combat the pandemic's spread. In other words, IoMT emphasizes health applications while maintaining the core concept of the Internet of Things (IoT). The further spread of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) can be halted by employing it. Consequently, this paper uses the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology to evaluate recently published articles in the IoMT domain during the COVID-19 era. Between 2019 and 2022, we analyzed 41 studies. An analysis of the evaluation criteria reveals that the delay factor comprises 38% of the evaluation criteria, the highest percentage because a low-delay IoMT device has a quick response time between the time a request is made and the time a response is received. Moreover, the performance factor accounts for 22%, the accuracy factor accounts for 28%, the security factor for 6%, and the cost factor for 6%. Finally, we concentrate on open issues and future research challenges in IoMT during the COVID-19 era.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available