ArticlePloS one2024
Implementing digital respiratory technologies for people with respiratory conditions: A protocol for a scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing Digital Respiratory Technologies for People With Respiratory Conditions: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Correction: Implementing digital respiratory technologies for people with respiratory conditions: A protocol for a scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The value of 'data-enabled', digital healthcare is evolving rapidly, as demonstrated in the COVID-19 pandemic, and its successful implementation remains complex and challenging. Harmonisation (within/between healthcare systems) of infrastructure and implementation strategies has the potential to promote safe, equitable and accessible digital healthcare, but guidance for implementation is lacking. Using respiratory technologies as an example, our scoping review process will capture and review the published research between 12th December 2013 to 12th December 2023. Following standard methodology (Arksey and O'Malley), we will search for studies published in ten databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, CABI Global Health, and WHO Medicus. Our search strategy will use the terms: digital health, respiratory conditions, and implementation. Using Covidence, screening of abstracts and full texts will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted into a pilot-tested data extraction table for charting, summarising and reporting the results. We will conduct stakeholder meetings throughout to discuss the themes emerging from implementation studies and support interpretation of findings in the light of their experience within their own networks and organisations. The findings will inform the future work within the ERS CONNECT clinical research collaboration and contribute to policy statements to promote a harmonised framework for digital transformation of respiratory healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.