Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35986056›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2022

Regulatory considerations to keep pace with innovation in digital health products.

John Torous, Ariel D Stern, Florence T Bourgeois

Abstract 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 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Download to heal: navigating the pixelated path of digital therapeutics in psychiatric care.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2025
    Review
  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

3 authors.

John TorousBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. jtorous@bidmc.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5362-7937
Ariel D SternHarvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3586-1041
Florence T BourgeoisHarvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid innovation and proliferation of software as a medical device have accelerated the clinical use of digital technologies across a wide array of medical conditions. Current regulatory pathways were developed for traditional (hardware) medical devices and offer a useful structure, but the evolution of digital devices requires concomitant innovation in regulatory approaches to maximize the potential benefits of these emerging technologies. A number of specific adaptations could strengthen current regulatory oversight while promoting ongoing innovation.

Identifiers

PMID35986056
PMCPMC9390099

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.