SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
From passive monitoring to active engagement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of digital health technologies for improving objective physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physical inactivity is a critical factor exacerbating obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and its associated comorbidities. Previous evidence has largely relied on subjective questionnaires, leading to a lack of definitive evidence based on objective measurements. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of digital health interventions (DHIs) on objective physical activity, body composition, and sleep parameters in OSA patients, while further exploring the efficacy differences between active intervention and passive monitoring modes. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across five major databases (including PubMed and Embase) and registration platforms up to November 19, 2025. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed physical activity using objective tools were included. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0), and the quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system. Statistical analyses utilized random-effects models to calculate Mean Differences (MD) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed based on a refined classification of intervention modes, accounting for interaction patterns, theoretical foundations, and the application of behavior change techniques (BCTs). Results: A total of seven randomized controlled trials involving 693 patients were included. Overall meta-analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between digital interventions and standard care in increasing daily steps (MD = 86.94, Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that the application of digital health technology alone may be insufficient to significantly alter objective step counts or clinical outcomes in OSA patients, which might be largely attributed to the prevalence of passive monitoring modes lacking deep interaction in current studies14. Nevertheless, the physiological benefits observed in VO Systematic review registration: [www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero], identifier [CRD420251246601].
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.