Table 6 Comparative analysis of routing protocols
From: A guide for the selection of routing protocols in WBAN for healthcare applications
Sl. no. | Routing protocol | Type of protocol | Average delay | Energy consumption | Packet delivery ratio | Average temperature rise |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | HIT [8] | Clustered | Very Low | Low | * | * |
2 | AnyBody [11] | Clustered | * | * | Very high | * |
3 | WASP [16] | Cross-layered | Low | Low | Very high | * |
4 | CICADA [14] | Cross-layered | Low | Low | * | * |
5 | TICOSS [15] | Cross-layered | * | Low | High | * |
6 | Routing service framework [56] | QoS-aware | * | * | Moderate | * |
7 | RL-QRP [55] | QoS-aware | High | * | High | * |
8 | ZEQoS [37] | QoS-aware | * | High | High | * |
9 | RL-QRP [55] | QoS-aware | Low | Low | High | * |
10 | ENSA-BAN [25] | QoS-aware | Very low | Low | Very high | * |
11 | Co-LEEBA [33] | QoS-aware | * | Low | High | * |
12 | DMQoS [50] | QoS-aware | Low | Moderate | High | * |
13 | LOCALMOR [54] | QoS-aware | Low | Low | High | * |
14 | TARA [59] | Temperature-aware | Very High | High | Low | Low |
15 | LTRT [58] | Temperature-aware | * | * | Very high | Low |
16 | RAIN [66] | Temperature-aware | Moderate | Low | High | Low |
17 | M-ATTEMPT [64] | Temperature-aware | Low | Low | High | Low |
18 | M2E2 [61] | Temperature-aware | Low | Very low | Very high | Low |
19 | TMQoS [63] | Temperature-aware | Very low | Very low | High | Moderate |
20 | ETPA [19] | Postural | High | Low | High | Low |
21 | PSR [20] | Postural | Low | High | Moderate | * |