Evidence mapPaperPMID 33591278Full record

ArticleJMIR diabetes2021

Application of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies in Assessing Mobile-Delivered Technologies for the Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Scoping Review.

Jessica R Forsyth, Hannah Chase, Nia W Roberts, Laura C Armitage, Andrew J Farmer

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR diabetes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jessica R ForsythMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0901-7787
Hannah ChaseMedical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9858-159X
Nia W RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1142-6440
Laura C ArmitageNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-4899
Andrew J FarmerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6170-4402

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing role of digital health technologies (DHTs) in the management of chronic health conditions, specifically type 2 diabetes. It is increasingly important that health technologies meet the evidence standards for health care settings. In 2019, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published the NICE Evidence Standards Framework for DHTs. This provides guidance for evaluating the effectiveness and economic value of DHTs in health care settings in the United Kingdom.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to assess whether scientific articles on DHTs for the self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus report the evidence suggested for implementation in clinical practice, as described in the NICE Evidence Standards Framework for DHTs.

methodsWe performed a scoping review of published articles and searched 5 databases to identify systematic reviews and primary studies of mobile device-delivered DHTs that provide self-management support for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The evidence reported within articles was assessed against standards described in the NICE framework.

resultsThe database search yielded 715 systematic reviews, of which, 45 were relevant and together included 59 eligible primary studies. Within these, there were 39 unique technologies. Using the NICE framework, 13 technologies met best practice standards, 3 met minimum standards only, and 23 technologies did not meet minimum standards.

conclusionsOn the assessment of peer-reviewed publications, over half of the identified DHTs did not appear to meet the minimum evidence standards recommended by the NICE framework. The most common reasons for studies of DHTs not meeting these evidence standards included the absence of a comparator group, no previous justification of sample size, no measurable improvement in condition-related outcomes, and a lack of statistical data analysis. This report provides information that will enable researchers and digital health developers to address these limitations when designing, delivering, and reporting digital health technology research in the future.

Indexed as

guidelineshealth technologymobile applicationsmobile healthself-managementtype 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID33591278
PMCPMC7925151

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.