Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38033281›Full record

SynthesisJCO clinical cancer informatics2023

Smartphone-Based Passive Sensing in Monitoring Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Dominique G Stuijt, Igor Radanovic, Milan Kos, Jan W Schoones, Frederik E Stuurman, Vasileios Exadaktylos, Adriaan D Bins, Jacobus J Bosch, Martijn G H van Oijen

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dominique G StuijtCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8468-2883
Igor RadanovicCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Milan KosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan W SchoonesDirectorate of Research Policy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Frederik E StuurmanDepartment Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Vasileios ExadaktylosCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Adriaan D BinsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jacobus J BoschCentre for Human Drug Research, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7653-885X
Martijn G H van OijenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4581-1440
Centre for Human Drug Research · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients with cancer are prone to frequent unplanned hospital visits because of disease or treatment complications. Smartphone-based passive sensing (SBPS) comprises data collection using smartphone sensors or device usage patterns, which may be an affordable and burdenless technique for remote monitoring of patients with cancer and timely detection of safety events. The aim of this article was to systematically review the published literature to identify the current state of SBPS in oncology care and research.

methodsA literature search was done with cutoff date July 29, 2022, using six different databases. Articles were included if they reported original studies using SBPS in patients with cancer or cancer survivors. Data extracted from studies included type of sensors used, cancer type, study objectives, and main findings.

resultsTwelve studies were included, the oldest report being from 2017. The most frequent of the nine analyzed sensors and smartphone analytics was the accelerometer (eight studies) and geolocation (eight studies), followed by call logs (two studies). Breast cancer was the most studied cancer type (eight studies with 111 patients), followed by GI cancers (six studies with 133 patients). All studies aiming for feasibility concluded that SBPS in oncology was feasible (seven studies). SBPS was used as a monitoring tool, with passively sensed data being correlated with adverse events, symptom burden, cancer-related fatigue, decision conflict, recovery trends after surgery, or psychosocial impact. SBPS was also used in one study as a predictive tool for health deterioration.

conclusionSBPS shows early promise in oncology, although it cannot yet replace traditional tools to monitor quality of life and clinical outcomes. For this, validation of SBPS will be required. Therefore, further research is warranted with this developing technique.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsSmartphoneFatigueFemaleHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID38033281
PMCPMC10703123
OpenAlexW4389159764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.