## 4 Discussion  
The analysis of the study's results revealed an intriguing pattern in the distribution of research over the specified time periods. The initial two years exhibited a relatively smaller volume of studies, with each year accounting for nine studies. However, the year 2022 saw a notable surge in the number of studies, totaling 17. The primary objective of this research was to contrast the number of studies conducted during the pre-pandemic year (2019) with those carried out in the early pandemic years (2020-2022). This analysis aimed to discern the potential influence of social distancing measures on the utilization of wearable devices in various studies. Interestingly, the findings uncovered a distinct issue within the dataset. A significant proportion, 40% (14 studies), did not specify the year in which the research was conducted, rendering them inconclusive in the context of this analysis. Among the discernible studies, 29% (10 studies) were conducted prior to the pandemic, while 31% (11 studies) were conducted in the post-pandemic period. Notably, of the 14 unspecified studies, 11 were published in 2021 and 2022. Assuming a time gap between research and publication, it can be inferred that these studies were conducted after the declaration of the pandemic. This suggests that the trend of wearable device usage was on the rise even before the pandemic, and this growth continued during the era of social distancing and other preventive measures. Furthermore, the analysis underscores the scarcity of research explicitly investigating the use of wearables in the context of COVID-19 conditions. Only two papers explored the application of wearables during these conditions, indicating that a substantial number of studies concerning COVID-19 are likely to emerge in the coming years. Consequently, a comprehensive literature review on this specific subject will be feasible once a substantial body of relevant research is available. This pattern also highlights a prevalent issue where a significant number of studies omit the precise date of their research, impeding literature reviews that necessitate a temporal context. The study also provides insights into the publication trends of authors in the field. Additionally, the majority of authors only published one paper in which they made use of monitoring devices, aligning with the expectation that these devices were predominantly used as a tool rather than central focus of investigation. Authors [PERSON] (three papers)  
Figure 7: Categories of activities. and [PERSON] (four papers) stand out with the highest number of contributions. They collaborated on three of these papers, concentrating on the validation of various wearables and exploring physical activity using specific wearable devices which indicates their keen interest in exploring diverse facets of wearable technology usage and effectiveness within the domain of sport sciences. Additionally, the distribution of authorship highlights an interesting trend. Among the 19 authors who authored two papers, 17 of them participated in the same research projects [25; 31]. None of the included papers were the work of independent researchers. This pattern reflects the evolving nature of authorship across contemporary scientific disciplines, where collaborative efforts involving a multitude of co-authors are increasingly prevalent [47]. It is to be seen if this kind of research is in its beginnings or if researchers prefer other types of measuring devices. The analysis of wearable device preferences aligns with the hypothesis that smartwatches would dominate as the most utilized monitoring wearables. Device preferences reflect the versatility of wearable technologies. Researchers and participants chose a wide variety of watches but the most popular were commercially available ones (Polar, Apple and Garmin) with several studies that selected more than just one. Similarly, Fitbit emerged as the primary choice for fitness trackers.