Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32715091›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2020

Outcome measures based on digital health technology sensor data: data- and patient-centric approaches.

Kirsten I Taylor, Hannah Staunton, Florian Lipsmeier, David Nobbs, Michael Lindemann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. A smartphone sensor-based digital outcome assessment of multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022
    Trial
  3. Smartphone-based patient-reported outcome of acute phase reaction after zoledronic acid infusion and prediction algorithm: a multicenter, prospective cohort study.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kirsten I TaylorPharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070 Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2480-3137
Hannah StauntonPatient-Centered Outcomes Research, Biometrics, Product Development, Roche Products Limited, Hexagon Place, 6 Falcon Way, Shire Park, Welwyn Garden City, AL7 1TW UK.
Florian LipsmeierPharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070 Basel, Switzerland.
David NobbsPharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070 Basel, Switzerland.
Michael LindemannPharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Grenzacherstrasse 124, 4070 Basel, Switzerland.
Roche (Switzerland) · CHRoche (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health technology tools (DHTT) are technologies such as apps, smartphones, and wearables that remotely acquire health-related information from individuals. They have the potential advantages of objectivity and sensitivity of measurement, richness of high-frequency sensor data, and opportunity for passive collection of health-related data. Thus, DHTTs promise to provide patient phenotyping at an order of granularity several times greater than is possible with traditional clinical research tools. While the conceptual development of novel DHTTs is keeping pace with technological and analytical advancements, an as yet unaddressed gap is how to develop robust and meaningful outcome measures based on sensor data. Here, we describe two roadmaps which were developed to generate outcome measures based on DHTT data: one using a data-centric approach and the second a patient-centric approach. The data-centric approach to develop digital outcome measures summarizes those sensor features maximally sensitive to the concept of interest, exemplified with the quantification of disease progression. The patient-centric approach summarizes those sensor features that are optimally relevant to patients' functioning in everyday life. Both roadmaps are exemplified for use in tracking disease progression in observational and clinical interventional studies, and with a DHTT designed to evaluate motor symptom severity and symptom experience in Parkinson's disease. Use cases other than disease progression (e.g., case-finding) are considered summarily. DHTT research requires methods to summarize sensor data into meaningful outcome measures. It is hoped that the concepts outlined here will encourage a scientific discourse and eventual consensus on the creation of novel digital outcome measures for both basic clinical research and clinical drug development.

Indexed as

Diagnostic markersDrug developmentNeurological manifestationsOutcomes researchParkinson's disease

Identifiers

PMID32715091
PMCPMC7378210
OpenAlexW3044978152

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.