Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38012218›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023

Wearable technology interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amar J Shah, Malik A Althobiani, Anita Saigal, Chibueze E Ogbonnaya, John R Hurst, Swapna Mandal

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. COPD-Lung Cancer Comorbidity: Mechanistic Insights and Precision Oncology Implications.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amar J ShahRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Malik A AlthobianiUCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
Anita SaigalRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Chibueze E OgbonnayaInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
John R HurstRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Swapna MandalRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. swapnamandal@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2232-5880
Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing Abdulaziz University · SAUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death and is associated with multiple medical and psychological comorbidities. Therefore, future strategies to improve COPD management and outcomes are needed for the betterment of patient care. Wearable technology interventions offer considerable promise in improving outcomes, but prior reviews fall short of assessing their role in the COPD population. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched ovid-MEDLINE, ovid-EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and IEEE databases from inception to April 2023 to identify studies investigating wearable technology interventions in an adult COPD population with prespecified outcomes of interest including physical activity promotion, increasing exercise capacity, exacerbation detection, and quality-of-life. We identified 7396 studies, of which 37 were included in our review. Meta-analysis showed wearable technology interventions significantly increased: the mean daily step count (mean difference (MD) 850 (494-1205) steps/day) and the six-minute walk distance (MD 5.81 m (1.02-10.61 m). However, the impact was short-lived. Furthermore, wearable technology coupled with another facet (such as health coaching or pulmonary rehabilitation) had a greater impact that wearable technology alone. Wearable technology had little impact on quality-of-life measures and had mixed results for exacerbation avoidance and prediction. It is clear that wearable technology interventions may have the potential to form a core part of future COPD management plans, but further work is required to translate this into meaningful clinical benefit.

Identifiers

PMID38012218
PMCPMC10682416
OpenAlexW4389040549

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.