ArticlePloS one2025
Study protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare digital stress tests regarding their psychological and physiological stress responses.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimStress is a phenomenon of everyday life that all humans are exposed to, and that can have negative effects on health. Exposure to chronic stress has been associated with development of several diseases, but also acute stress can have detrimental health effects. To understand acute stress, standardized laboratory protocols are frequently employed. However, these protocols require considerable personal and financial resources, and are therefore usually uneconomical. More and more digitized, automated protocols are currently being developed, which may enable a more cost-effective and less time-consuming implementation, but these have not been systematically examined and compared. The aim of the proposed systematic review is therefore to provide a comprehensive overview of different digital stress tests and to compare them in terms of the elicited stress responses.
methodsThis study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, and PRISMA-P guidelines were followed. We will screen several online databases for eligible studies in English or German without any restrictions on the publication date using an a priori defined search strategy. Additionally, we will search those papers for other eligible studies. The primary outcome will be stress and/or similar psychological states. The search, selection and data extraction processes will be conducted by two independent reviewers. In case of discrepancy a third reviewer will be consulted. If possible, we will perform meta-analyses. To determine confidence in results we will assess risk of bias and overall quality of evidence. Additionally, results will be critically examined to avoid meta-biases. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses are published comparing digital stress tests - designed to elicit stress and/or similar psychological states. In this study protocol, we propose a systematic review analyzing existing digital stress tests, and examining their effectiveness by measuring acute stress responses.
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.