ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2020
Apprehensions about Excessive Belief in Digital Therapeutics: Points of Concern Excluding Merits.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Italian landscape of digital therapeutics in a European context.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Integrating digital therapeutics for patients with mental illness into clinical practice: perspectives for US healthcare professionals.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Effects of Clinician Prescribing and Implementation Materials on Adoption of Virtual Reality Therapeutics: Randomized Feasibility Pilot Study.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2026Article
- Analysis of experiences on telemedicine pilot projects from the perspectives of doctors, pharmacists, and patients.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Download to heal: navigating the pixelated path of digital therapeutics in psychiatric care.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2025Review
- Stakeholders' Perceptions Regarding Digital Therapeutics Reimbursement in South Korea: Qualitative Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Digital Therapeutics in Migraine Management: A Novel Treatment Option in the COVID-19 Era.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- Reimbursement of Digital Therapeutics: Future Perspectives in Korea.Korean circulation journal · 2022Review
- Lack of Acceptance of Digital Healthcare in the Medical Market: Addressing Old Problems Raised by Various Clinical Professionals and Developing Possible Solutions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Review
- Towards Telemedicine Adoption in Korea: 10 Practical Recommendations for Physicians.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Digital therapeutics (DTx), like drugs or medical devices, 1) must prove their effectiveness and safety through clinical trials; 2) are provided to patients through prescriptions from doctors; and 3) may require the approval of regulatory agencies, though this might not be mandatory. Although DTx will play an important role in the medical field in the near future, some merits of DTx have been exaggerated at this crucial juncture. In the medical field, where safety and effectiveness are important, merely reducing the development time and costs of DTx is not advantageous. The adverse effects of DTx are not yet well-known, and will be identified eventually, with the passage of time. DTx is beneficial for the collection and analysis of real-world data (RWD); however, they require new and distinct work to collect and analyze high-quality RWD. Naturally, whether this is possible must be independently ascertained through scientific methods. Depending on the type of disease, it is not recommended that DTx be prescribed, even if the patient rejects conventional treatment. Prescription of conventional pharmacotherapy is often necessary, and if the prescription of DTx is inadequate, the critical time for initial treatment may be missed. There is no basis for continuing DTx use by patients. Rather, the rate of continuity of DTx use is extremely low. While many conventional pharmacotherapies have undergone numerous verification and safety tests over a long time, barriers to the application of DTx in the medical field are lower than those for conventional pharmacotherapies. Considering these reasons, except for certain special cases, an approach to DTx is needed that complements the prescription of conventional pharmacotherapy by the medical staff. When DTx are prescribed by doctors who clearly know their advantages and disadvantages, the doctors' expertise may undergo further refinement, and the quality of medical care is expected to improve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.