Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35017634›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2022

Digital health tools for the passive monitoring of depression: a systematic review of methods.

Valeria De Angel, Serena Lewis, Katie White, Carolin Oetzmann, Daniel Leightley, Emanuela Oprea, Grace Lavelle, Faith Matcham, Alice Pace, David C Mohr and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
28.4field-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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 203 citations in OpenAlex.

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

69 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Valeria De AngelInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. Valeria.de_angel@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5109-3636
Serena LewisInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Katie WhiteInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Carolin OetzmannInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Daniel LeightleyInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9512-752X
Emanuela OpreaInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Grace LavelleInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3768-1797
Faith MatchamInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Alice PaceChelsea And Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David C MohrCenter for Behavioral Intervention Technologies, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5443-7596
Richard DobsonNIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Matthew HotopfInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBChelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorthwestern University · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of digital tools to measure physiological and behavioural variables of potential relevance to mental health is a growing field sitting at the intersection between computer science, engineering, and clinical science. We summarised the literature on remote measuring technologies, mapping methodological challenges and threats to reproducibility, and identified leading digital signals for depression. Medical and computer science databases were searched between January 2007 and November 2019. Published studies linking depression and objective behavioural data obtained from smartphone and wearable device sensors in adults with unipolar depression and healthy subjects were included. A descriptive approach was taken to synthesise study methodologies. We included 51 studies and found threats to reproducibility and transparency arising from failure to provide comprehensive descriptions of recruitment strategies, sample information, feature construction and the determination and handling of missing data. The literature is characterised by small sample sizes, short follow-up duration and great variability in the quality of reporting, limiting the interpretability of pooled results. Bivariate analyses show consistency in statistically significant associations between depression and digital features from sleep, physical activity, location, and phone use data. Machine learning models found the predictive value of aggregated features. Given the pitfalls in the combined literature, these results should be taken purely as a starting point for hypothesis generation. Since this research is ultimately aimed at informing clinical practice, we recommend improvements in reporting standards including consideration of generalisability and reproducibility, such as wider diversity of samples, thorough reporting methodology and the reporting of potential bias in studies with numerous features.

Identifiers

PMID35017634
PMCPMC8752685
OpenAlexW4221044624

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.