SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024
Benchmarking the clinical outcomes of Healthentia SaMD in chronic disease management: a systematic literature review comparison.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Methods and Digital Intervention Strategies for Predicting and Managing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: An Umbrella Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Multidomain Behavioral Change Digital Coaching for Chronic Disease Management in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Framework Development and Preliminary Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Management, Safety, and Efficacy Evaluation of Nutraceutical and Functional Food: A Global Perspective.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Review
- Approved trends and product characteristics of digital therapeutics in four countries.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- The COMFORTage project: study protocol for the integration of multiple sources towards personalised preventions at Ace Alzheimer Center Barcelona.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and mobile health (mHealth) applications have revolutionized the healthcare landscape in the areas of remote patient monitoring (RPM) and digital therapeutics (DTx). These technological advancements offer a range of benefits, from improved patient engagement and real-time monitoring, to evidence-based personalized treatment plans, risk prediction, and enhanced clinical outcomes. Objective: The systematic literature review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the status of SaMD and mHealth apps, highlight the promising results, and discuss what is the potential of these technologies for improving health outcomes. Methods: The research methodology was structured in two phases. In the first phase, a search was conducted in the EuropePMC (EPMC) database up to April 2024 for systematic reviews on studies using the PICO model. The study population comprised individuals afflicted by chronic diseases; the intervention involved the utilization of mHealth solutions in comparison to any alternative intervention; the desired outcome focused on the efficient monitoring of patients. Systematic reviews fulfilling these criteria were incorporated within the framework of this study. The second phase of the investigation involved identifying and assessing clinical studies referenced in the systematic reviews, followed by the synthesis of their risk profiles and clinical benefits. Results: The results are rather positive, demonstrating how SaMDs can support the management of chronic diseases, satisfying patient safety and performance requirements. The principal findings, after the analysis of the extraction table referring to the 35 primary studies included, are: 24 studies (68.6%) analyzed clinical indications for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), six studies (17.1%) analyzed clinical indications for cardiovascular conditions, three studies (8.7%) analyzed clinical indications for cancer, one study (2.8%) analyzed clinical indications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and one study (2.8%) analyzed clinical indications for hypertension. No severe adverse events related to the use of mHealth were reported in any of them. However, five studies (14.3%) reported mild adverse events (related to hypoglycemia, uncontrolled hypertension), and four studies (11.4%) reported technical issues with the devices (related to missing patient adherence requirements, Bluetooth unsuccessful pairing, and poor network connections). For what concerns variables of interest, out of the 35 studies, 14 reported positive results on the reduction of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with the use of mHealth devices. Eight studies examined health-related quality of life (HRQoL); in three cases, there were no statistically significant differences, while the groups using mHealth devices in the other five studies experienced better HRQoL. Seven studies focused on physical activity and performance, all reflecting increased attention to physical activity levels. Six studies addressed depression and anxiety, with mostly self-reported benefits observed. Four studies each reported improvements in body fat and adherence to medications in the mHealth solutions arm. Three studies examined blood pressure (BP), reporting reduction in BP, and three studies addressed BMI, with one finding no statistically significant change and two instead BMI reduction. Two studies reported significant weight/waist reduction and reduced hospital readmissions. Finally, individual studies noted improvements in sleep quality/time, self-care/management, six-minute walk distance (6MWD), and exacerbation outcomes. Conclusion: The systematic literature review demonstrates the significant potential of software as a medical device (SaMD) and mobile health (mHealth) applications in revolutionizing chronic disease management through remote patient monitoring (RPM) and digital therapeutics (DTx). The evidence synthesized from multiple systematic reviews and clinical studies indicates that these technologies, exemplified by solutions like Healthentia, can effectively support patient monitoring and improve health outcomes while meeting crucial safety and performance requirements. The positive results observed across various chronic conditions underscore the transformative role of digital health interventions in modern healthcare delivery. However, further research is needed to address long-term efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and integration into existing healthcare systems. As the field rapidly evolves, continued evaluation and refinement of these technologies will be essential to fully realize their potential in enhancing patient care and health management strategies.
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.