Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31562164›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Effectiveness of digital technology interventions to reduce loneliness in adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, David Nogueras, Hugo van Woerden, Vasiliki Kiparoglou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Prevalence and Impact of Social Frailty in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Social Frailty in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020
    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.

Syed Ghulam Sarwar ShahNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK Sarwar.Shah@ouh.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5713-3686
David NoguerasDNM Consulting, London, UK.
Hugo van WoerdenNHS Highland, Assynt House, Inverness, UK.
Vasiliki KiparoglouNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLoneliness is an emerging public health problem that is associated with social, emotional, mental and physical health issues. The application of digital technology (DT) interventions to reduce loneliness has significantly increased in the recent years. The effectiveness of DT interventions needs to be assessed systematically. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Aim: To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of DT interventions to reduce loneliness among adults.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science.Publication period: 1 January 2010 to 31 July 2019. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary studies involving the application of DT interventions to reduce loneliness, involving adult participants (aged ≥18 years), follow-up period ≥3 months and published in the English language.Synthesis and meta-analysis: A narrative summary of the characteristics of included studies, findings by the type of DT intervention, and the age, gender and ethnicity of participants. A meta-analysis by the study design and duration of follow-up and determination of random effects size using the RevMan V.5 software.Quality of evidence and bias: Quality of evidence assessed the RoB V.2.0 (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) tools for randomised control trials and non-randomised studies, respectively. Heterogeneity between studies will be determined by the I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this protocol. The findings will be disseminated through journal articles and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019131524.

Indexed as

LonelinessAdultHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicTechnologyAdultsDigital technologyEffectivenessLonelinessMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31562164
PMCPMC6773278

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.