ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of digital health in cardiovascular diseases.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the Gap: Multidisciplinary Decision Making to Address Systemic Barriers in Cardiovascular Care.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Combined effects of Evodiae Fructus point application and psycho-cardiology nursing on post-PCI coronary heart disease patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring the impact of digital care delivery for patients with diabetes and hypertension: A longitudinal qualitative study.Digital healthArticle
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
Abstract
The integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in digital health (DH) trials for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remains unknown. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials that tested DH interventions in CVDs from 2004 to 2024. The search identified 8037 trials, with 673 eligible trials included in the analysis. Among these, 321 trials (48%) incorporated PROs. The number of DH trials and the use of PROs have shown a significant upward trend. Phone-based interventions predominated (38%), mostly targeting hypertension (38%) and heart failure (27%). Behavioral interventions showed higher prevalence of PROs' usage (1.24 [1.04-1.48]), while trials for diagnostic or screening purpose (0.39 [0.20-0.77]) utilized PROs less frequently. Only 15% of trials reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov, while 58% were published in PubMed after completion. Despite DH trial expansion, PRO integration remains insufficient, especially in trials where clinical and patient perspectives are important in informing treatment decisions. Timely results dissemination is critical to improving transparency.
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.