Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33824407›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2021

Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review.

Anne M Finucane, Hannah O'Donnell, Jean Lugton, Tilly Gibson-Watt, Connie Swenson, Claudia Pagliari

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Role of Digital Health on Palliative Care: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effect of applying digital health in palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Application of virtual reality for supportive care in cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anne M FinucaneClinical Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. a.finucane@ed.ac.uk.
Hannah O'DonnellThe Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Jean LugtonMarie Curie Hospice Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Tilly Gibson-WattEdinburgh Medical School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7014-7564
Connie SwensonMarie Curie Hospice Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Claudia PagliariThe Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5791-7723
Marie Curie Hospice · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Identifiers

PMID33824407
PMCPMC8024379
OpenAlexW3140442677

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.