Evidence mapPaperPMID 41789396Full record

ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026

PICO-based assessment and categorization of evidence for digital health interventions: an inductive framework development.

Uwe Buddrus, Jan-Oliver Kutza, Johannes Thye, Moritz Esdar, Ursula Hertha Hübner, Jan-David Liebe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Uwe BuddrusDigital Society, Research Centre for Health and Social Informatics, School of Business Management and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück-University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Jan-Oliver KutzaDigital Society, Research Centre for Health and Social Informatics, School of Business Management and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück-University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Johannes ThyeDigital Society, Research Centre for Health and Social Informatics, School of Business Management and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück-University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Moritz EsdarDigital Society, Research Centre for Health and Social Informatics, School of Business Management and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück-University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Ursula Hertha HübnerDigital Society, Research Centre for Health and Social Informatics, School of Business Management and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück-University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Jan-David LiebeDigital Society, Research Centre for Health and Social Informatics, School of Business Management and Social Sciences, Hochschule Osnabrück-University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the increasing number of systematic reviews on digital health interventions (DHIs), clear and robust evidence remains elusive due to methodological shortcomings in formulating research questions and conducting search and screening processes. The growing volume of reviews necessitates higher-level syntheses like umbrella reviews and evidence gap maps, requiring methods for rapid, systematic evidence assessment at the abstract level. Objective: With the development of the PICO-based Assessment and Categorization of Evidence for Digital Health Interventions (PACE4DHI) framework we aim to enable the efficient structured screening of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at the level of abstracts for subsequent evidence and gap mapping (EGM). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed across five databases, adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to capture systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2011 and October 2023. All categories of DHIs, populations, settings, and outcomes were considered. From 21,161 results, we screened 9,030 titles and abstracts post-de-duplication, with 2,528 remaining. To construct the framework, thematic analysis was conducted on a random sample of 250 studies. The framework's accuracy was validated on 138 open-access articles through full-text comparisons. Results: The PACE4DHI framework encompasses 41 categories, spanning 11 problems (e.g., cardiovascular diseases), 13 DHIs (e.g., telemedicine), 6 comparative care settings (e.g., outpatient care), 7 outcome dimensions (e.g., effectiveness), and 4 evidence classification levels. The PICO-categorization and evidence classification was confirmed with varying accuracy and largely consistent results at both abstract and full-text levels. Variability in the accuracy reflects that abstracts provided more detail on problems and interventions than they did for the comparator and outcomes. The likelihood of conclusive evidence was more accurately predicted for cardinal classes (high and low) than for inconclusiveness. Conclusions: The PACE4DHI framework provides a systematic and pragmatic methodology, with potential to enhance structured access to existing evidence. The framework may also inform the research questions and the search and screening strategies of future systematic reviews. The application in EGM has potential to optimize evidence-based decision-making, while also enabling precise identification of research gaps. Its use with artificial intelligence tools may facilitate efficient ongoing evidence screening and synthesis, ultimately supporting a searchable evidence database.

Indexed as

assessmentcategorizationclassificationdigital health interventionsevidenceframeworkoutcomessystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID41789396
PMCPMC12957232

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.