Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39870797›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

A systematic review of passive data for remote monitoring in psychosis and schizophrenia.

Siân Bladon, Emily Eisner, Sandra Bucci, Anuoluwapo Oluwatayo, Glen P Martin, Matthew Sperrin, John Ainsworth, Sophie Faulkner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors.

Siân BladonCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. sian.bladon@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9087-6505
Emily EisnerDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Sandra BucciDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-5333
Anuoluwapo OluwatayoDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Glen P MartinCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Matthew SperrinCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351-9960
John AinsworthCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2187-9195
Sophie FaulknerDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing use of digital tools to monitor people with psychosis and schizophrenia remotely, but using this type of data is challenging. This systematic review aimed to summarise how studies processed and analysed data collected through digital devices. In total, 203 articles collecting passive data through smartphones or wearable devices, from participants with psychosis or schizophrenia were included in the review. Accelerometers were the most common device (n = 115 studies), followed by smartphones (n = 46). The most commonly derived features were sleep duration (n = 50) and time spent sedentary (n = 41). Thirty studies assessed data quality and another 69 applied data quantity thresholds. Mixed effects models were used in 21 studies and time-series and machine-learning methods were used in 18 studies. Reporting of methods to process and analyse data was inconsistent, highlighting a need to improve the standardisation of methods and reporting in this area of research.

Identifiers

PMID39870797
PMCPMC11772847

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.