McLean Gary, Murray Elizabeth, Band Rebecca, Moffat Keith R, Hanlon Peter, Bruton Anne, Thomas Mike, Yardley Lucy, Mair Frances S
Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Rowland Hill Street, London, UK.
BMC Pulm Med. 2016 May 23;16(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12890-016-0248-7.
To identify, summarise and synthesise the evidence for using interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of asthma, and determine their impact.
Systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, DoPHER, TROPHI, Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index. The selection criteria requirement was studies of adults (16 years and over) with asthma, interventions that were interactive digital interventions and the comparator was usual care. Outcomes were change in clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness and patient-reported measures of wellbeing or quality of life. Only Randomised Controlled Trials published in peer-reviewed journals in English were eligible. Potential studies were screened and study characteristics and outcomes were extracted from eligible papers independently by two researchers. Where data allowed, meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.
Eight papers describing 5 trials with 593 participants were included, but only three studies were eligible for inclusion for meta-analysis. Of these, two aimed to improve asthma control and the third aimed to reduce the total dose of oral prednisolone without worsening control. Analyses with data from all three studies showed no significant differences and extremely high heterogeneity for both Asthma Quality of Life (AQLQ) (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.05; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32 to -0.22: I2 96.8) and asthma control (SMD 0.21; 95 % CI -0.05 to .42; I2 = 87.4). The removal of the third study reduced heterogeneity and indicated significant improvement for both AQLQ (SMD 0.45; 95 % CI 0.13 to 0.77: I2 = 0.34) and asthma control (SMD 0.54; 95 % CI 0.22 to 0.86: I2 = 0.11). No evidence of harm was identified.
Digital self-management interventions for adults with asthma show promise, with some evidence of small beneficial effects on asthma control. Overall, the evidence base remains weak due to the lack of large, robust trials.
识别、总结和综合使用交互式数字干预措施来支持哮喘患者自我管理的证据,并确定其影响。
进行系统评价并荟萃分析。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、ERIC、Cochrane图书馆、DoPHER、TROPHI、社会科学引文索引和科学引文索引。选择标准要求是针对成年哮喘患者(16岁及以上)的研究,干预措施为交互式数字干预,对照为常规护理。结局指标为临床结局的变化、成本效益以及患者报告的幸福感或生活质量指标。仅纳入发表在同行评审英文期刊上的随机对照试验。两名研究人员独立筛选潜在研究,并从符合条件的论文中提取研究特征和结局指标。在数据允许的情况下,使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
纳入了8篇描述5项试验、共593名参与者的论文,但只有3项研究符合荟萃分析的纳入标准。其中,2项旨在改善哮喘控制,第3项旨在减少口服泼尼松龙的总剂量且不使病情控制恶化。对所有3项研究的数据进行分析显示,哮喘生活质量(AQLQ)(标准化均数差(SMD)0.05;95%置信区间(CI)0.32至-0.22:I² 96.8)和哮喘控制(SMD 0.21;95% CI -0.05至0.42;I² = 87.4)均无显著差异且异质性极高。剔除第3项研究后降低了异质性,并表明AQLQ(SMD 0.45;95% CI 0.13至0.77:I² = 0.34)和哮喘控制(SMD 0.54;95% CI 0.22至0.86:I² = 0.11)均有显著改善。未发现有害证据。
针对成年哮喘患者的数字自我管理干预措施显示出前景,有一些证据表明对哮喘控制有微小的有益影响。总体而言,由于缺乏大规模、有力的试验,证据基础仍然薄弱。