ReviewInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[Evidence of positive care effects by digital health apps-methodological challenges and approaches].
Review in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Many Instruments Do We Need? Strengths, Weaknesses, and Potentials for Further Developments of Digital Health Literacy Measurement Instruments: Narrative Overview of Reviews and Content Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Assessing the Quality of Evidence Regarding Permanently Listed Digital Health Applications (DiGAs) in Germany: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Relevance of eHealth Literacy (eHL) for Health Services Research and Practice - Part I].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2026Article
- [Implementation and benefits of healthcare apps in surgical disciplines-A Delphi expert consensus].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Article
- Prerequisites for primary care in obesity counselling and management: a quantitative, exploratory survey of general practitioners in the federal Republic of Germany.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- [Community-based Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Promoting Digital Health Literacy among People in Precarious Living Conditions].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2025Article
- [Digital health applications-What we should know as rheumatologists].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2024Review
- Two years of approved digital health applications in Germany - Perspectives and experiences of general practitioners with an affinity for their use.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2020, digital health applications (DiGA) can be prescribed at the expense of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) system after undergoing an approval procedure by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). DiGA can be approved provisionally for 1 year (with the option of extension) or permanently. The latter is dependent on scientific evidence of a positive effect on care, which can be a medical benefit or a patient-relevant structural and procedural improvement in care. However, it is apparent that the investigation of DiGA in scientific studies is challenging, as they are often complex interventions whose success also includes user and prescriber factors. In addition, health services research data underpinning the benefits of DiGA are lacking to date. In the current article, methodological considerations for DiGA research are presented, and a selection of internal medicine DiGAs is used to critically discuss current research practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36279007What 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.