ArticlePloS one2025
Protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of digital health solutions in supporting adult cancer survivorship care.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The cancer survivorship paradox in the digital era.PLoS medicine · 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
61 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe growing number of people living with, through and beyond cancer poses a new challenge for sustainable survivorship care solutions. Digital health solutions which incorporate various information and communication technologies are reshaping healthcare; offering huge potential to facilitate health promotion, support healthcare efficiencies, improve access to healthcare and positively impact health outcomes. Digital health solutions include websites and mobile applications, health information technologies, telehealth solutions, wearable devices, AI-supported chatbots and other technologically assisted provision of health information, communication and services. The breadth and scope of digital health solutions necessitate a synthesis of evidence on their use in supportive care in cancer. This umbrella review will identify, synthesise, and compare systematic reviews which have evaluated the efficacy or effectiveness of digital solutions for adult cancer survivorship care with a particular focus on surveillance and management of physical effects, psychosocial effects, new cancer/ recurring cancers and supporting health promotion and disease prevention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An umbrella review of published systematic reviews will be undertaken to explore the types of digital health solutions used, their efficacy or effectiveness as a form of supportive care, and the barriers and enablers associated with their implementation. The umbrella review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) checklist. A search will be conducted across key databases. Records will be assessed independently by two review authors for eligibility against predefined criteria and will undergo two stage title, abstract and full text screening. All systematic reviews that meet the inclusion criteria will be assessed for quality using the AMSTAR 2 checklist with quality assessment and data extraction by two reviewers. The degree of publication overlap of primary studies across the included reviews will also be calculated and a mapping of the evidence will also be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this research proposes using systematic reviews that are already published, ethical approval is not required. Results from this umbrella review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal where any significant deviations from the protocol will be justified.
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.