Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37526973›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

Economic Evaluation Associated With Clinical-Grade Mobile App-Based Digital Therapeutic Interventions: Systematic Review.

Yoann Sapanel, Xavier Tadeo, Connor T A Brenna, Alexandria Remus, Florian Koerber, L Martin Cloutier, Gabriel Tremblay, Agata Blasiak, Chris L Hardesty, Joanne Yoong and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. N-of-1 medicine.Singapore medical journal · 2024
    Article
  14. Adoption of Digital Therapeutics in Europe.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2024
    Review
  15. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Yoann SapanelThe Institute for Digital Medicine WisDM, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-6797-7850
Xavier TadeoThe Institute for Digital Medicine WisDM, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0356-826X
Connor T A BrennaDepartment of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6126-3897
Alexandria RemusThe Institute for Digital Medicine WisDM, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9002-7933
Florian KoerberIU Internationale Hochschule GmbH, Bad Honnef, Germany.ORCID 0009-0009-3578-9594
L Martin CloutierDepartment of Analytics, Operations, and Information Technologies, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5410-791X
Gabriel TremblayCytel Canada Health Inc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9001-3128
Agata BlasiakThe Institute for Digital Medicine WisDM, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0727-7611
Chris L HardestyPureland Global Venture Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0009-0007-0922-558X
Joanne YoongResearch For Impact, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0162-9885
Dean HoThe Institute for Digital Medicine WisDM, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7337-296X
National University of Singapore · SGGlobalFoundries (Singapore) · SGIU International University of Applied Sciences · DEUniversité du Québec à Montréal · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital therapeutics (DTx), a class of software-based clinical interventions, are promising new technologies that can potentially prevent, manage, or treat a spectrum of medical disorders and diseases as well as deliver unprecedented portability for patients and scalability for health care providers. Their adoption and implementation were accelerated by the need for remote care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and awareness about their utility has rapidly grown among providers, payers, and regulators. Despite this, relatively little is known about the capacity of DTx to provide economic value in care.

objectiveThis study aimed to systematically review and summarize the published evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of clinical-grade mobile app-based DTx and explore the factors affecting such evaluations.

methodsA systematic review of economic evaluations of clinical-grade mobile app-based DTx was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Major electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched for eligible studies published from inception to October 28, 2022. Two independent reviewers evaluated the eligibility of all the retrieved articles for inclusion in the review. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed for each included study.

resultsA total of 18 studies were included in this review. Of the 18 studies, 7 (39%) were nonrandomized study-based economic evaluations, 6 (33%) were model-based evaluations, and 5 (28%) were randomized clinical trial-based evaluations. The DTx intervention subject to assessment was found to be cost-effective in 12 (67%) studies, cost saving in 5 (28%) studies, and cost-effective in 1 (6%) study in only 1 of the 3 countries where it was being deployed in the final study. Qualitative deficiencies in methodology and substantial potential for bias, including risks of performance bias and selection bias in participant recruitment, were identified in several included studies.

conclusionsThis systematic review supports the thesis that DTx interventions offer potential economic benefits. However, DTx economic analyses conducted to date exhibit important methodological shortcomings that must be addressed in future evaluations to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the widespread adoption of DTx interventions.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022358616; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022358616.

Indexed as

COVID-19Mobile ApplicationsClinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPandemicscost-effectivenessdigital healthdigital therapeuticseconomic evaluationmobile phonesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37526973
PMCPMC10427932
OpenAlexW4382361384

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.