ArticleBMJ open2025
Mapping methodologies for economic assessment of digital health technologies: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Editorial: The Role of Telemedicine in Transforming Healthcare Delivery-Capabilities and Barriers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
introductionDigital health technologies (DHTs) have emerged as transformative tools capable of improving healthcare delivery, reducing costs and enhancing patient care. Despite their potential, the integration of DHTs into healthcare systems is challenged by the lack of clear frameworks for evaluating their cost-effectiveness. Economic evaluations are crucial to guide the adoption and financing of these technologies. However, conventional frameworks often fail to address the unique characteristics and complexities of DHTs fully. This scoping review aims to map the existing frameworks for economic evaluation of DHTs and identify methodological approaches that can inform and guide future assessments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and report findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A systematic search will be conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Business Source Complete) and grey literature sources for studies published since 2015. Included studies must focus on health technology assessment or economic evaluation frameworks tailored to DHTs, addressing economic evaluation methodologies. The data will be extracted using a customised template, and a narrative summary, along with descriptive statistics, will be employed to synthesise the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this review involves publicly available data, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at relevant conferences. This review aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for integrating DHTs into healthcare systems, influencing policy and guiding future research in health economics.
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.