Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32729837›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Computer-Controlled Virtual Humans in Patient-Facing Systems: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Debaleena Chattopadhyay, Tengteng Ma, Hasti Sharifi, Pamela Martyn-Nemeth

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Virtual humans in geriatric care: an integrative review.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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.

Debaleena ChattopadhyayDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8197-9905
Tengteng MaDepartment of Information and Decision Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1822-3168
Hasti SharifiDepartment of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4324-4745
Pamela Martyn-NemethDepartment of Biobehavioral Health Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0323-3614

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVirtual humans (VH) are computer-generated characters that appear humanlike and simulate face-to-face conversations using verbal and nonverbal cues. Unlike formless conversational agents, like smart speakers or chatbots, VH bring together the capabilities of both a conversational agent and an interactive avatar (computer-represented digital characters). Although their use in patient-facing systems has garnered substantial interest, it is unknown to what extent VH are effective in health applications.

objectiveThe purpose of this review was to examine the effectiveness of VH in patient-facing systems. The design and implementation characteristics of these systems were also examined.

methodsElectronic bibliographic databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles with relevant key terms. Studies were included in the systematic review if they designed or evaluated VH in patient-facing systems. Of the included studies, studies that used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate VH were included in the meta-analysis; they were then summarized using the PICOTS framework (population, intervention, comparison group, outcomes, time frame, setting). Summary effect sizes, using random-effects models, were calculated, and the risk of bias was assessed.

resultsAmong the 8,125 unique records identified, 53 articles describing 33 unique systems, were qualitatively, systematically reviewed. Two distinct design categories emerged - simple VH and VH augmented with health sensors and trackers. Of the 53 articles, 16 (26 studies) with 44 primary and 22 secondary outcomes were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of the 44 primary outcome measures revealed a significant difference between intervention and control conditions, favoring the VH intervention (SMD = .166, 95% CI .039-.292, P=.012), but with evidence of some heterogeneity, I

conclusionsWe offer evidence for the efficacy of VH in patient-facing systems. Considering that studies included different population and outcome types, more focused analysis is needed in the future. Future studies also need to identify what features of virtual human interventions contribute toward their effectiveness.

Indexed as

User-Computer InterfaceCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPatientsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicavatarschatbotconversational agentsdigital interlocutorsmeta-analysispatient-facing systemsvirtual humans

Identifiers

PMID32729837
PMCPMC7426801

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.