ReviewCureus2025
The Impact of Digital Health Interventions on Quality of Life Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite routine management, heart failure (HF) patients often contend with a burdensome symptomatology negatively affecting their quality of life (QoL). The use of digital health interventions (DHIs) such as mobile health (mHealth) applications, wearable devices, and remote monitoring systems (RMS) is transforming the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, evidence regarding their effectiveness in improving QoL remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of DHIs on QoL in patients with HF. A systematic search of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies identified 14 studies evaluating QoL; nine of them reported statistically significant improvements associated with DHIs. Among the three studies assessing self-care outcomes, two demonstrated statistically significant improvements with DHI use, while one reported a non-significant reduction. Meta-analysis of six studies utilising the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) revealed a significant improvement in QoL (-8.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.0 to -5.04), although this finding was limited by considerable heterogeneity (p=0.0025, I²=73%). Additionally, analysis of four studies employing the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) indicated a statistically significant improvement in QoL (2.13, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.92) with no significant heterogeneity (p=0.1719, I²=35.3%). Overall, this review demonstrates that DHIs generally have a positive impact on QoL in HF patients. However, the heterogeneity within the meta-analysis due to the varied intervention types used, study durations, and participant characteristics highlights the need for more focused, high-quality research to facilitate stronger meta-analyses. Future studies should aim to assess the most effective components of DHI types, evaluate longer-term outcomes, and explore implementation in real-world settings.
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.