Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34524477›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021

[Benefit assessment of digital health applications-challenges and opportunities].

Lars G Hemkens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

1 author.

Lars G HemkensBasel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (ceb), Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 12, 4031, Basel, Schweiz. lars.hemkens@usb.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital health applications promise to improve patient health and medical care. This analysis provides a brief overview of evidence-based benefit assessment and the challenges to the underlying evidence as prerequisites for optimal patient-oriented decision making. Classical concepts in study design, recent developments, and innovative approaches are described with the aim of highlighting future areas of development in innovative study designs and strategic evaluation concepts for digital health applications. A special focus is on pragmatic study designs.Evidence-based benefit assessment has fundamental requirements and criteria regardless of the type of treatments evaluated. Reliable evidence is essential. Fast, efficient, reliable, and practice-relevant evaluation of digital health applications is not achieved by turning to nonrandomized trials, but rather by better pragmatic randomized trials. They are feasible and combine the characteristics of digital health applications, classical methodological concepts, and new approaches to study conduct. Routinely collected data, low-contact study conduct (remote trials, virtual trials), and digital biomarkers promote useful randomized real-world evidence as solid evidence base for digital health applications. Continuous learning evaluation with randomized designs embedded in routine care is key to sustainable and efficient benefit assessment of digital health applications and may be crucial for strategic improvement of healthcare.

Indexed as

Research DesignGermanyHumansBenefit assessmentDigital healthMobile applicationsPragmatic trialsResearch design

Identifiers

PMID34524477
PMCPMC8441956

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.