Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38309237›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of medical informatics2024

Methodological challenges in systematic reviews of mHealth interventions: Survey and consensus-based recommendations.

Jesus Lopez-Alcalde, L Susan Wieland, Jürgen Barth, Rebecca Grainger, Nancy Baxter, Neil Heron, Andreas Triantafyllidis, Carme Carrion, Eleonora M C Trecca, Felix Holl and 7 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. 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

17 authors.

Jesus Lopez-AlcaldeInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (UFV), Madrid, Spain; Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria (IRYCIS), Unidad de bioestadística clínica, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: jesus.lopez@usz.ch.
L Susan WielandCenter for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Jürgen BarthInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Rebecca GraingerDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago Wellington, New Zealand.
Nancy BaxterMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Neil HeronCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Northern Ireland, School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, United Kingdom.
Andreas TriantafyllidisInformation Technologies Institute, Centre for Research and Technology Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Carme CarrioneHealth Lab Research Group, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Spain.
Eleonora M C TreccaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Maxillofacial Surgery, IRCCS Hospital Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Felix HollDigiHealth Institute, Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany; Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ana Maria WägnerEndocrinology and Nutrition Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario Insular Materno-Infantil, Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Sanitarias, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.
Sarah EdneySaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Yuqian YanInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Concepción Campos-AsensioBiblioteca Médica, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain.
Gemma VillanuevaCochrane Response, Cochrane, London, UK.
Rachelle R RamseyDivision of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Claudia M WittInstitute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States; Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field: Resource for ResearchR24AT001293 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI BERMAN, BRIAN M, WIELAND, LISA SUSAN · 2003 to 2022
$9.4M
Using technology-assisted stepped-care interventions to improve adherence in adolescents with asthmaK23HL139992 · NHLBI · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI RAMSEY, RACHELLE R. · 2019 to 2023
$868k
NCCIH NIH HHS R24 AT001293NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL139992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMobile Health (mHealth) refers to using mobile devices to support health. This study aimed to identify specific methodological challenges in systematic reviews (SRs) of mHealth interventions and to develop guidance for addressing selected challenges. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingTwo-phase participatory research project. First, we sent an online survey to corresponding authors of SRs of mHealth interventions. On a five-category scale, survey respondents rated how challenging they found 24 methodological aspects in SRs of mHealth interventions compared to non-mHealth intervention SRs. Second, a subset of survey respondents participated in an online workshop to discuss recommendations to address the most challenging methodological aspects identified in the survey. Finally, consensus-based recommendations were developed based on the workshop discussion and subsequent interaction via email with the workshop participants and two external mHealth SR authors.

resultsWe contacted 953 corresponding authors of mHealth intervention SRs, of whom 50 (5 %) completed the survey. All the respondents identified at least one methodological aspect as more or much more challenging in mHealth intervention SRs than in non-mHealth SRs. A median of 11 (IQR 7.25-15) out of 24 aspects (46 %) were rated as more or much more challenging. Those most frequently reported were: defining intervention intensity and components (85 %), extracting mHealth intervention details (71 %), dealing with dynamic research with evolving interventions (70 %), assessing intervention integrity (69 %), defining the intervention (66 %) and maintaining an updated review (65 %). Eleven survey respondents participated in the workshop (five had authored more than three mHealth SRs). Eighteen consensus-based recommendations were developed to address issues related to mHealth intervention integrity and to keep mHealth SRs up to date.

conclusionmHealth SRs present specific methodological challenges compared to non-mHealth interventions, particularly related to intervention integrity and keeping SRs current. Our recommendations for addressing these challenges can improve mHealth SRs.

Indexed as

Research DesignTelemedicineHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Reviews as TopicDigital healtheHealthMeta-analysisSurveySystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID38309237
PMCPMC11192046

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.