ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Digital health interventions for perioperative patient-reported outcomes: a network meta-analysis.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital health interventions (DHIs), delivered via digital platforms such as internet-based programs, mobile applications or short messages, may improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but comparative effectiveness is unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, identified in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science to March 1, 2025. Standardized mean differences (SMDs), mean differences (MDs) with minimal important differences (MIDs), and 95% CIs were estimated. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with GRADE. Fifty-six trials (6,154 patients) were included. Extended reality (XR) most effectively reduced perioperative anxiety (SMD 0.60; 95% CI 0.37-0.84; MD 8.05; MID 6.71; moderate-certainty). For postoperative pain, mobile applications (SMD 0.64; 95% CI 0.32-0.95; MD 1.36; MID 1.0; moderate-certainty) and XR (SMD 0.51; 95% CI 0.26-0.76; MD 1.09; MID 1.0; moderate-certainty) were probably effective. For quality of life, 2D video yielded the greatest gain (SMD 0.99; 95% CI 0.11-1.88; MD 0.11; MID 0.05; high-certainty). XR also improved satisfaction (SMD 1.27; 95% CI 0.63-1.91; MD 1.91; MID 0.75; moderate-certainty). These findings suggest that DHIs may improve perioperative PROs.
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.