Table 2: Simulation scenario of proposed routing protocols for WMSNs.

ProtocolVerified methodSimulator typePerformance metrics Compared toComparison result
SimulatorTestbed

Yao et al. [15]Not specifiedEnergy consumption-delay-distanceSARThe REAR algorithm prolongs the network liftme and performs much better than SAR
Guannan et al. [16]OMNet++PRR-network life timeMHC and floodingAchieveing higher data rate and longer network life time. But under higher package transmitting rate from source, receiving rate, and network life time will drop fast
Mande and Yuanyan [17]
Hamid et al. [18]NS-2Delay-node life time-throughputSingle-r and multi-r mechanismsProviding significant performance improvements in terms of average delay, average lifetime, and network throughput
MCRA [20]NS-2Delay-packet loss ratio-control message overheadSPEED-DD Showing that it has a good overall performance
Poojary and Pai [21]Qualnet network simulatorEnergy consumption-PRRNot specifiedProlonging the network life time and the packet drop reduces as the number of paths selected for the data transmission is increased
Li et al. [22]NS-2Throughput-delay-goodputEDGE and basic diffusionAchieving high throughput and desirable delay to meet the QoS requirement of multimedia streaming
Kai and Min [23] Not specifiedEnergy consumption-reliabilityNot comparedThe energy consumption is reduced by using the proposed energy prediction mechanism
LEAR [25]NS-2ThroughputAODVThe protocol finds possible disjoint paths or partial disjoint paths for multimedia traffic faster than AODV
MLAF [26] OpnetEnergy consumption-PRRLAFShowing good result in energy consumption, reliability, and end to end delay
ASAR [7]NS-2queuing delay, PRR, and dropped rate Traditional ant-based-Dijkstra-DD Select the optimal paths to meet their individual QoS requirements. Thus improving network performance
Rahman et al. [8]JavaDelay-jitterNot comparedM-IAR shows good performance which achieves acceptable delay, jitter, and energy consumption
ALCOLBR [9]NS-2Delay-node life time-PRRAGRA and M-IARACOLBR has a better adaptability; it can achieve load balancing, reduce the end to end delay, and prolong the network lifetime
Ke et al. [10]
TPGF [12]NetTopoDelay-no. of found pathsGPSRHoles can be efficiently bypassed compared to (GPSR), suitable for multimedia transmission
GEAMS [13]OMNeT++Delay-lost packet-energy distributionGPSRMore suitable for WMSNs than GPSR as it ensures uniform energy consumption and meets the delay and packet loss constraint