Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495094›Full record

ArticleThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease.

E Murray, J Burns, Tai S See, R Lai, I Nazareth

RetractedAbstract readRetracted Publication
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. "Is Cybermedicine Killing You?"--The story of a Cochrane disaster.Journal of medical Internet research · 2005
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Managing addiction as a chronic condition.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2007
    Article
  18. Using the internet for research: results at a keystroke.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

E MurrayPrimary Care and Population Sciences, RF&UCMS University College London, Level 2 Holborn Union Building, Archway Campus, London, UK, N19 5LW.
J Burns
Tai S See
R Lai
I Nazareth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInteractive Health Communication Applications (IHCAs) are computer-based, usually web-based health information packages for patients that combine information with at least one of social support, decision support, or behaviour change support. These are innovations in health care and their effects on health are uncertain.

objectivesTo assess the effects of IHCAs for people with chronic disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We designed a four-part search strategy. First, we searched electronic bibliographic databases for published work; second, we searched the grey literature and third, we searched for ongoing and recently completed clinical trials in the appropriate databases. Finally, researchers of included studies were contacted, and reference lists from relevant primary and review articles were followed up. As IHCAs require relatively new technology, the search commenced at 1990 where possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Interactive Health Communication Applications for adults and children with chronic disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer screened abstracts. Two reviewers screened all candidate studies to determine eligibility, apply quality criteria, and extract data from included studies. Authors of included RCTs were contacted for missing data. Results of RCTs were pooled using a random effects model and standardised mean differences (SMDs) were calculated to provide net effect sizes. MAIN

resultsWe screened 24,757 unique citations and retrieved 958 papers for further assessment, yielding 28 RCTs involving 4042 participants. One of these had an inadequate method of concealment of allocation, and sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the effects of including or excluding these data in the meta-analyses. Results in the abstract are from the meta-analyses excluding data from this study.IHCAs were found to have a positive effect on knowledge (SMD 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.84) and on social support (SMD 0.47; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.66). IHCAs were found to have no effect on self-efficacy (SMD 0.15; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.43) or behavioural outcomes (SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.32). IHCAs had a negative effect on clinical outcomes (SMD -0.32; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.02). REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThe number and range of IHCAs is increasing rapidly; however there is a shortage of high quality evaluative data. Consumers who wish to increase their knowledge or social support amongst people with a similar problem may find an IHCA helpful. However, consumers whose primary aim is to achieve optimal clinical outcomes should not use an IHCA at present. Further research is needed to determine the reason for this negative effect on clinical outcomes, whether an optimal IHCA can achieve behaviour change and improved health outcomes, and if so, what are the essential features of such an IHCA, and the extent to which they differ according to patient group or condition.

Indexed as

Retraction of Publication as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.