ArticleBMJ open2024
Evaluation of health recommender systems: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPeople increasingly rely on online health information for their health-related decision-making. Given the overwhelming amount of information available, the risk of misinformation is high. Health recommender systems, which recommend personalised health-related information or interventions using intelligent algorithms, have the potential to address this issue. Many such systems have been developed and evaluated individually, but there is a need to synthesise the evaluation findings to identify gaps and ensure that future recommender systems are designed to have a positive impact on health or target behaviours.
objectiveThe purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the state of the literature evaluating health recommender systems and highlight lessons learnt, methodological considerations and gaps in current research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and the Population, Concept, and Context frameworks. Five databases (PubMED, ACM Digital Library Full-Text Collection, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science and ScienceDirect) will be searched for studies published in English that evaluate at least one health recommender system using search terms following the themes reflecting digital health, recommendation systems and evaluations of efficacy and impact. After using EndNote 21 for initial screening, two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts of the references, and then extract data from included studies related to the recommender system characteristics, evaluation design and evaluation findings into a predetermined form. A descriptive analysis will be conducted to provide an overview of the literature; key themes and gaps in the literature will be discussed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as data will be obtained from already published sources. Findings from this study will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.