ArticleDigital health
The NICE Evidence Standards Framework for digital health and care technologies - Developing and maintaining an innovative evidence framework with global impact.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
93 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of Digital Health Technologies in Scoliosis Rehabilitation: Systematic Review Based on the Technology Classification Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The Landscape of Mobile Apps for Healthy Eating: Case Study for a Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- AI for IMPACTS Framework for Evaluating the Long-Term Real-World Impacts of AI-Powered Clinician Tools: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Economic evaluations of artificial intelligence-based healthcare interventions: a systematic literature review of best practices in their conduct and reporting.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- The effectiveness of digital health technologies for patients with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2022Pooled it
- Smart Start - Designing Powerful Clinical Trials Using Pilot Study Data.NEJM evidence · 2024Trial
- Differences Between Online Trial Participants Who Have Used Statutory Mental Health Services and Those Who Have Not: Analysis of Baseline Data From 2 Pragmatic Trials of a Digital Health Intervention.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Beyond the algorithm: why oncology nursing in Asia-Pacific needs evidence-based AI evaluation.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Wearable Electronic Monitoring of Vital Signs in Hospitalised Adults: A Nursing Focused Scoping Review of Clinical, Economic and Implementation Outcomes.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Article
- Digital health for cancer prevention: implications for current and future traditional in-person programs.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Use of Information and Communication Technologies in Patients With Cancer Receiving Antineoplastic or Supportive Therapy: Comparative Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Multilingual Voice AI for Postoperative Cataract Follow-Up in Turkish Speaking Patients in the United Kingdom: Patient and Public Involvement Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Beyond CE Marking: The Need for Life-Cycle Health Technology Assessment of Medical Devices for Patient Safety and Health-System Value.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sternum-worn vibrotactile device in Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Stakeholder preferences on digital health in Germany: a health preference study protocol.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A scoping review on using real-world data to evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth applications.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Unraveling acceptance of healthcare innovations in neurorehabilitation: results from a discrete choice experiment.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn 2018, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), in partnership with Public Health England, NHS England, NHS Improvement and others, developed an evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health and care technologies (DHTs). The ESF was designed to provide a standardised approach to guide developers and commissioners on the levels of evidence needed for the clinical and economic evaluation of DHTs by health and care systems.
methodsThe framework was developed using an agile and iterative methodology that included a literature review of existing initiatives and comparison of these against the requirements set by NHS England; iterative consultation with stakeholders through an expert working group and workshops; and questionnaire-based stakeholder input on a publicly available draft document.
resultsThe evidence standards framework has been well-received and to date the ESF has been viewed online over 55,000 times and downloaded over 19,000 times.
conclusionsIn April 2021 we published an update to the ESF. Here, we summarise the process through which the ESF was developed, reflect on its global impact to date, and describe NICE's ongoing work to maintain and improve the framework in the context for a fast moving, innovative field.
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.