ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2023
A Systematic Literature Review on Trustworthiness for Applications Used in eHealth Environments.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- eHealth and mHealth in Antimicrobial Stewardship to Reduce Mortality in Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy and a Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis of Adequate Therapy.Infectious disease reports · 2024Review
- eHealth and mHealth in Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs.Digital biomarkersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The technological advancement of the Internet of Things (IoT) creates opportunities in various social sectors. Patients in clinics or home care have their comfort and safety enhanced with remote monitoring, sensors and applications that control and transfer patient data. These applications must be trustworthy, since they deal with sensitive data. Purpose: The purpose of this work is to identify gaps in trustworthiness, availability, effectiveness, security and other attributes. Also, to highlight challenges and opportunities for research and give guidance on choosing the right technology or application based on the resources available to support patients and doctors, protocol of communication and maturity level of these technologies. Methodology: This work presents a systematic review of the literature following four steps: Definition of the Research Questions, Conduct Search, Screening of Papers, and Data Extraction and Mapping Process. Results: Based on the articles studied, it was possible to answer important questions about eHealth applications. The results highlight how eHealth applications can enhance patient care by monitoring health data and supporting doctors' decision-making with a reasonable level of trustworthiness. Additionally, the results demonstrate how applications can notify external caregivers in emergencies and assist in diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. However, these applications still face problems related to sensor lifetime, medical data sharing, interoperability and lack of standardization. Finally, we suggest a literature mapping to support the choice of technologies based on resources available, communication protocol and technological maturity. Conclusion: This work carries out a systematic literature review to discuss state-of-the-art eHealth applications and gather new information of current research. In this process it was possible to show how these applications work, map out their main technological characteristics to assist the decision-making process for future works and uncover eHealth applications' strengths, future perspectives and challenges, specifically related to the high level of trustworthiness necessary.
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.