SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Comparative efficacy of different digital health intervention modalities versus traditional pulmonary rehabilitation on daily step counts and exercise capacity in patients with COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Pilot Feasibility Study of a Metronome-Cued mHealth System to Promote Walking Exercise in COPD.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Digital health interventions (DHIs) provide essential technical support for home-based rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, the comparative efficacy of different technological modalities on objective exercise outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and rank the relative effectiveness of various digital intervention modalities in improving daily step counts and the 6-min walk distance (6MWD) in patients with COPD using a network meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to October 28, 2025. Intervention modalities were categorized into: Composite Digital Interventions (App + Sensor), Wearables Only, Synchronous Tele-rehabilitation (Tele-rehab), Center-based Pulmonary Rehabilitation (Center-based PR), and Usual Care. A network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) was utilized for probabilistic ranking, and the GRADE framework was employed to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Twenty-two RCTs involving 1,556 participants were included. Regarding the improvement of daily step counts, Synchronous Tele-rehab showed the highest ranking probability (SUCRA = 84.5%), followed by Composite Digital Interventions (SUCRA = 66.8%). Compared with usual care, Composite Digital Interventions demonstrated a statistically significant difference (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.04-0.35); however, significant inconsistency was observed within the network ( Conclusion: Based on preliminary observations from existing evidence, digital health interventions hold potential value in improving exercise outcomes in patients with COPD. However, due to the low certainty of evidence and the presence of network inconsistency, the current SUCRA ranking results should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than a definitive hierarchy of superiority. Digital health interventions should not be viewed as a full replacement for traditional rehabilitation but rather positioned as a complementary strategy particularly for patient populations in resource-limited settings or those lacking access to center-based services to extend the coverage of pulmonary rehabilitation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251271868, CRD420251271868.
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.