ReviewDigital biomarkers
Using Digital Outcomes to Measure Meaningful Aspects of Health in Clinical Trials for Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review.
Review in Digital biomarkers. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The importance of considering the meaningfulness of digital measures is increasing with the expanding use of sensor-based monitoring in clinical trials. Regulatory guidelines emphasize measuring meaningful aspects of health specific to a patient population. Summary: Translating meaningful aspects of health into objective measures is not a trivial task. We review how researchers justify the use of digital endpoints in Parkinson's disease trials, with emphasis on meaningfulness to patients. A systematic search (ClinicalTrials.gov; ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) yielded 45 trials using digital measures as primary or secondary endpoints. We performed a qualitative analysis of trial protocols to identify justifications for using digital endpoints. We found that justifications for meaningfulness were often presented for general health domains and rarely for specific digital endpoints. Moreover, explanation for meaningfulness to patients was often not made explicit, indicating a discrepancy between guidelines and research practice. Key Messages: Meaningfulness of specific digital measures to patients is often not explicitly justified and there is a disconnect between guidelines and research practice. Because of the complexity of linking meaningfulness to digital measures, there is a need for sharing examples and lessons learned, and for further developed and differentiated guidelines. Moreover, to foster true meaningfulness of digital measures to patients, there is a need for prioritizing measuring meaningful aspects of health as a central requirement for the development and selection of these measures. The lessons learned from the Parkinson's disease context may inspire and inform the adoption of digital endpoints in other disease areas.
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.