Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33540640›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2021

Electronic Health Interventions in the Case of Multiple Sclerosis: From Theory to Practice.

Maria Scholz, Rocco Haase, Dirk Schriefer, Isabel Voigt, Tjalf Ziemssen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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.

Maria ScholzCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3400-5921
Rocco HaaseCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2465-4909
Dirk SchrieferCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7524-7628
Isabel VoigtCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0097-8589
Tjalf ZiemssenCenter of Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl-Gustav Carus, Dresden University of Technology, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8799-8202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: eHealth interventions play a growing role in shaping the future healthcare system. The integration of eHealth interventions can enhance the efficiency and quality of patient management and optimize the course of treatment for chronically ill patients. In this integrative review, we discuss different types of interventions, standards and advantages of quality eHealth approaches especially for people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). (2) Methods: The electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched to identify potential articles for eHealth interventions in pwMS; based on 62 articles, we consider different ways of implementing health information technology with various designs. (3) Results: There already exist some eHealth interventions for single users with a single-use case, interventions with a social setting, as well as eHealth interventions that integrate various single and social interventions and even those that may be used additionally for complex use cases. A key determinant of consumer acceptance is a high-quality user-centric design for healthcare practitioners and pwMS. In pwMS, the different neurological disabilities should be considered, and particular attention must be paid to the course of the treatment and the safety processes of each treatment option. (4) Conclusion: Depending on the field of application and the respective users, interventions are designed for single, social, integrated or complex use. In order to be accepted by their target group, interventions must be beneficial and easy to use.

Indexed as

digital healtheHealthinterventionmultiple sclerosispatient management

Identifiers

PMID33540640
PMCPMC7913051

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.