O'Neil Adrienne, Cocker Fiona, Rarau Patricia, Baptista Shaira, Cassimatis Mandy, Barr Taylor C, Lau Annie Y S, Kanuri Nitya, Oldenburg Brian
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Jul 1;24(4):867-879. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw166.
We conducted a meta-review to determine the reporting quality of user-centered digital interventions for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic conditions.
Using predetermined inclusion criteria, systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2015 were identified from 3 databases. To assess whether current evidence is sufficient to inform wider uptake and implementation of digital health programs, we assessed the quality of reporting of research findings using (1) endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, (2) a quality assessment framework (eg, Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool), and (3) 8 parameters of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth (CONSORT-eHEALTH) guidelines (developed in 2010).
Of the 33 systematic reviews covering social media, Web-based programs, mobile health programs, and composite modalities, 6 reported using the recommended PRISMA guidelines. Seven did not report using a quality assessment framework. Applying the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines, reporting was of mild to moderate strength.
To our knowledge, this is the first meta-review to provide a comprehensive analysis of the quality of reporting of research findings for a range of digital health interventions. Our findings suggest that the evidence base and quality of reporting in this rapidly developing field needs significant improvement in order to inform wider implementation and uptake.
The inconsistent quality of reporting of digital health interventions for cardiometabolic outcomes may be a critical impediment to real-world implementation.
我们进行了一项元综述,以确定以用户为中心的数字干预措施在预防和管理心脏代谢疾病方面的报告质量。
根据预先确定的纳入标准,从3个数据库中识别出2010年至2015年间发表的系统评价。为了评估当前证据是否足以支持数字健康计划更广泛地采用和实施,我们使用以下方法评估研究结果的报告质量:(1)认可系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南;(2)质量评估框架(如Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具);(3)电子和移动健康应用及在线远程医疗试验报告统一标准(CONSORT-eHEALTH)指南(2010年制定)的8个参数。
在涵盖社交媒体、基于网络的项目、移动健康项目和综合模式的33项系统评价中,6项报告使用了推荐的PRISMA指南。7项未报告使用质量评估框架。应用CONSORT-EHEALTH指南,报告强度为轻度至中度。
据我们所知,这是第一项对一系列数字健康干预措施的研究结果报告质量进行全面分析的元综述。我们的研究结果表明,为了支持更广泛的实施和采用,这个快速发展领域的证据基础和报告质量需要显著提高。
心脏代谢结局数字健康干预措施报告质量的不一致可能是实际实施的关键障碍。