Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25768939›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2015

"What Is eHealth": Time for An Update?

Emiel A Boogerd, Tessa Arts, Lucien Jlpg Engelen, Tom H van de Belt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Attitudes of dermatological patients towards digital health interventions: a cross-sectional survey and cluster analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emiel A BoogerdRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Medical Psychology, Nijmegen, Netherlands. emiel.boogerd@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6848-0889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The annual number of articles reporting on eHealth interventions has increased over the last 10 years. In contrast, the last article in this journal on the definition of eHealth was published in 2006. This leads to the question whether the field itself has reached consensus about the definition and description of eHealth or whether it is in need for a new review of the literature and a new description of the rapidly changing field of eHealth. Since the JMIR community has successfully collaborated on the "CONSORT-eHealth" in the past, we would like to use the same strategy to explore the need for a new definition of eHealth and the creation of a taxonomy for this field. Therefore, we hereby submit a call to all JMIR-readers, to fill out a 4-question survey on their ideas about a refined eHealth definition. Based on these results, we will decide whether or not to engage in a systematic review. Logically, the entire JMIR community is invited to join us in our attempt to further elucidate the field of eHealth.

Identifiers

PMID25768939
PMCPMC4376129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.