Smart Healthcare Applications over 5G Networks: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provide a complete review of the introduction of wireless technologies, e.g., Wi-Fi, bluetooth, 5G, etc in the medical sector. They review, the security, the type of medical application, the intelligence that they use, if the application requires real time or not, if they are device 2 device, human 2 device, machine 2 machine or hybrid machine 2 machine - device 2 device. For every type of scenario they compute a matrix where the x axis is the type of communication protocol and in the y-axis the parameter to measure. In particular the parameter to measure are:  type of paper (theoretical, prototype, proposal, implementations), application area (real-time, data transmission, remote care), healthcare benefits (constant attention, immediate emergency assistance, specialized medical care), type of IoMT devices (wearables, body sensors, ultra-high definition cameras, artificial intelligence, teleoperated robots), security protocol (authentication, coding, encryption, other), to name a few of the multiple cross-informations that this paper provide between the typology of the paper and the communication system that it is used.

From my side I will remove the lines from 922-927 since they are in spanish. These lines are the same as the 928-932 but in english.

 

Author Response

Dear review,

All corrections were made as requested. In addition, we have made other minor modifications related to the same reviewers' observations. All corrections are detailed in the attached document.

Best regards,

Luis F. Guerrero-Vasquez

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors in this paper did a systematic review based on the PRISMA method by selecting articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria that avoid bias. The paper is based on research questions that were answered from the included works. The questions focus on technical characteristics, health benefits, and security protocols necessary for Smart Healthcare applications development.

Even though the technical information gives clear enough, they should have provided some more information about how they provide it and also more detailed theoretical information.

Furthermore, the authors should:

·       The figures have been mentioned in the text as

·       Figure 3 could have been put after the paragraph in which it has been mentioned.

·       Figures 5, 6, and 7 should be reconsidered if are really important in order to be presented in the paper.

·       Tables 2 and 3 have never been mentioned in the text. Add a paragraph for each giving some details.

·       Add the appropriate citations in figures if they are not originally made by the authors.

·       Most of the text in the introduction could have been added in a new section namely “Literature Review” or “Related Work” in order to have a better structure of the paper.

·     Add some future work in the Conclusion section. It would be good in future work to add something as a case study.

·     The authors could have added more recent references since some very important references are still missing.

·      The English language and styles are fine but some minor spell-check is required.

·      Tip: A SWOT analysis may also be a good option to use in such a research paper.

I think the paper is good but needs improvement in order to be accepted. I don't have any potential conflict of interest with regard to this paper, I haven't detected plagiarism, and I don't have any other ethical concerns about this study.

Even though, I think the paper is good enough in order to be accepted after a minor revision.

 

Author Response

Dear review,

All corrections were made as requested. In addition, we have made other minor modifications related to the same reviewers' observations. All corrections are detailed in the attached document.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting theme and the authors have conducted a hard work doing the systematic review. However, there are several changes that need to be done before publishing the manuscript:

1. Abstract

- There is an error spelling eMBB;

- The authors need to explain in the abstract the reason for conducting the systematic review. What is the gap in the literature that this study fills in?

2. Introduction

- The authors point out other literature reviews previously conducted in this topic, but fail to explain what this study adds to those previous ones. What is the gap that those studies did not address and this review addresses?

3. Method

- In the keywords, why weren’t addressed “telesurgery”, “mobile medical assistance” and “remote monitoring”?

- The authors should explain the reason for choosing all those databases;

- Isn’t table 1 part of the results? Shouldn’t it be in the results’ section?

- Table 1 should mention the journal where the article was published;

- In English, decimal numbers have points. E.g.: 31.8%

- Every time you mention a percentage (%), you should also mention the number (n). Example: 31.8% (n=xx). This should be seen across the manuscript;

- Regarding the origin of the studies, it world be interesting to have a world map indicating the countries involved.

4. Results

- The last paragraph (lines 850-851) should be developed. The authors should mention the main results from the heat maps (and not only from fig 13).

5. Conclusions

- One of the main conclusions of the study is right on the first paragraph: few studies are implemented and operational (or even developed prototype). This is actually what is going on within the notion of smart cities, in which most marketing strategies are based on rhetoric and not on actual technological implementation. See for instance these 3 examples: Rocha et al (2019) Smart Cities and Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Rocha et al (2019) Smart Cities and Public Health: A Systematic Review. Rocha et al (2019) Smart Cities’ Applications to Facilitate the Mobility of Older Adults: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

6. Appendix A

- The name of some axes is not correct.

7. Proofreading

- The writing definitely needs improvement. In several parts one can notice that the structure of the sentences was directly translated from Spanish. In fact, in the conclusion there is even a whole paragraph written in Spanish. But the problem is mainly in the way the wording is done all over the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear review,

All corrections were made as requested. In addition, we have made other minor modifications related to the same reviewers' observations. All corrections are detailed in the attached document.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addreesed most of my comments. The only issue that still remains is the need of proofreading. Besides that, the manuscript is, in my opinion, ready to be published.