Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40845677›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025

Evolving Digital Health Technologies: Aligning With and Enhancing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework.

Shayan Bahadori, Peter Buckle, Tayana Soukup Ascensao, Saira Ghafur, Patrick Kierkegaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Artificial Intelligence and the future of clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025
    Article
  9. Beyond techno-optimism: four critical limitations in the UK's AI policy for health care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

5 authors.

Shayan BahadoriDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0201-9840
Peter BuckleDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3985-2441
Tayana Soukup AscensaoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0203-7264
Saira GhafurDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4487-6904
Patrick KierkegaardDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8600-7956

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven diagnostics and wearable health technologies is transforming health care delivery by enabling real-time health monitoring and early disease detection. These innovations are catalyzing a shift toward personalized medicine, with interventions tailored to individual patient profiles with unprecedented precision. This paper examines the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies (DHTs) and evaluates the challenges associated with integrating DHTs into existing health and care systems. A comprehensive review of the NICE ESF guidelines was conducted, alongside an evaluation of their applicability to emerging AI and wearable technologies. Key limitations and barriers were identified, with particular focus on the framework's responsiveness to technologies that evolve through machine learning and real-world data integration. Our findings indicate that while the NICE ESF provides a structured approach for evaluating DHTs, it lacks the adaptability required for rapidly evolving innovations. The framework does not sufficiently incorporate real-world evidence or support continuous learning models, which are critical for the safe and effective deployment of AI-based diagnostics and wearables. To remain effective and relevant, the NICE ESF should transition to a dynamic, adaptive model co-designed with industry stakeholders. By embedding real-world evidence-based strategies and promoting transparency, efficiency, and collaborative innovation, the updated framework would better facilitate the integration of AI-driven diagnostics and wearables into health care systems, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and optimizing health care delivery.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyDigital TechnologyArtificial IntelligenceDigital HealthHumansUnited KingdomWearable Electronic Devicesalgorithmanalyticsappartificial intelligencedigital healthdigital interventiondigital technologyimplementationmachine learningmedical devicemHealthmobile appmobile healthmodelsmartphonewearable device

Identifiers

PMID40845677
PMCPMC12373408

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.