SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2026
Effect of Digital Health Interventions on the Nutritional Status and Quality of Life of Patients With Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health interventions may improve clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), but their impact on nutritional status (NS) and quality of life (QoL) remains unclear. Objective: This study systematically evaluated the impact of digital health interventions on the NS and QoL in patients with CRC. Methods: A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from inception to March 2026 to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating digital health interventions on NS or QoL in CRC. Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool [RoB 1.0]). Meta-analysis used a random-effects model to compute standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using Results: Eleven RCTs from 7 countries, involving 1210 participants aged 37.7-69.0 years. The meta-analysis shows that digital health interventions have no significant effect on improving NS (MD 2.23, 95% CI -10.50 to 14.97; Conclusions: Digital health interventions have a moderate effect on improving the QoL in patients with CRC, especially when guided interventions are employed, the effect is clearer and more stable. This innovatively identifies "guided intervention models" as a key moderator of efficacy, contrasting with prior reviews that focused solely on technology. Our findings provide new evidence highlighting the importance of interpersonal support in digital health applications. In practice, digital tools should integrate professional medical guidance and supervision rather than being implemented in isolation, to more effectively improve health outcomes in patients with CRC.
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.