ReviewIranian journal of public health2023
Evaluation Methods in Clinical Health Technologies: A Systematic Review.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Devices in Healthcare: A Review of Hardware, Software, and Usability Approaches.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- An Online Psychological Program for Adolescents and Young Adults With Headaches: Iterative Design and Rapid Usability Testing.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study was conducted to classify the types of evaluation methods in clinical health technologies based on a systematic review method. Methods: An electronic search was conducted in three scientific databases including Scopus, PubMed and ISI. The search strategy was performed in Jul to Nov 2021 and based on the three main concepts of "evaluation", "technology", "health. This search has been restricted to 10 years (2011-2021). Moreover, it only was limited to English and papers published in journals and conferences proceeding. Results: Overall, 8149 references were identified for title and abstract screening. Full text screening was performed for 2674 articles, with 174 meeting the criteria for study inclusion. Conclusion: Most of the technologies evaluated in these articles were associated with PC-based systems (N=107), and there have been fewer mobile apps (N=67). Most of used technologies were with goals of treatment (43%, N=74) and education (26%, N=45). Among all the methods, the most and the least used methods were usability (66%, N=115) and qualitative (1%, N=2) method, respectively. The most method for health clinical technologies is usability method especially in telemedicine 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.