SynthesisJMIR medical informatics2025
Smart Contracts and Shared Platforms in Sustainable Health Care: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blockchain for Digital Health Governance: Evidence Gap Map and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Towards convergence of AI and blockchain for personalized medicine in pharmacogenomics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Acceptance of Smart Contracts in Patients Receiving Primary Care: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of smart contracts (SCs) for sustainable health care are a relatively recent topic that has gathered attention given its relationship with trust and the advantages of decentralization, immutability, and traceability introduced in health care. Nevertheless, more studies need to explore the role of SCs in this sector based on the frameworks propounded in the literature that reflect business logic that has been customized, automatized, and prioritized, as well as system trust. This study addressed this lacuna.
objectiveThis study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of SCs in health care based on reviewing the frameworks propounded in the literature.
methodsA structured literature review was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) principles. One database-Web of Science (WoS)-was selected to avoid bias generated by database differences and data wrangling. A quantitative assessment of the studies based on machine learning and data reduction methodologies was complemented with a qualitative, in-depth, detailed review of the frameworks propounded in the literature.
resultsA total of 70 studies, which constituted 18.7% (70/374) of the studies on this subject, met the selection criteria and were analyzed. A multiple correspondence analysis-with 74.44% of the inertia-produced 3 factors describing the advances in the topic. Two of them referred to the leading roles of SCs: (1) health care process enhancement and (2) assurance of patients' privacy protection. The first role included 6 themes, and the second one included 3 themes. The third factor encompassed the technical features that improve system efficiency. The in-depth review of these 3 factors and the identification of stakeholders allowed us to characterize the system trust in health care SCs. We assessed the risk of coverage bias, and good percentages of overlap were obtained-66% (49/74) of PubMed articles were also in WoS, and 88.3% (181/205) of WoS articles also appeared in Scopus.
conclusionsThis comprehensive review allows us to understand the relevance of SCs and the potentiality of their use in patient-centric health care that considers more than technical aspects. It also provides insights for further research based on specific stakeholders, locations, and behaviors.
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.