SynthesisJMIR aging2026
The Associations Between Digital Exclusion and Physical or Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR aging, 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.
- Machine learning to identify novel bleeding and residual thromboembolic risks in patients on anticoagulation.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital exclusion posed a significant challenge, especially in middle-aged and older adults, which affected their health outcomes. However, the evidence regarding the associations of digital exclusion on physical or cognitive function outcomes was controversial, and no systematic review had been performed to synthesize the pooled associations. Objective: This study aimed to explore the relationship between digital exclusion and physical or cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and cross-sectional studies, including Chinese or English publications retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang databases up to August 31, 2024. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The pooled effect size was calculated based on odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios, risk ratios, and 95% CIs. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024585459). Results: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 cohort studies and 6 cross-sectional studies, which had moderate-to-low risk of bias. The pooled analysis indicated that digital exclusion had prospective associations with decreased basic activities of daily living (incidence rate ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.12-1.64, I2=94.7%) and instrumental activities of daily living (incidence rate ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.13-1.89, I2=96.2%), or cross-sectional association with activities of daily living (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.41-3.73, I2=91%), with no statistical significance in the prospective association with frailty (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.92-1.59, I2=95.2%). There were prospective associations between digital exclusion and dementia (hazard ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.43-2.22, I2=0%), decreased Mini-Mental State Examination scores (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.39-2.75, I2=0%), as well as cross-sectional associations with Mini-Mental State Examination scores (OR 2.90, 95% CI 2.07-4.07, I2=0%), and no statistical significance in the prospective association with cognitive impairment (risk ratio 2.08, 95% CI 0.98-4.44, I2=78.2%). Conclusions: Our findings indicated the negative associations of digital exclusion with physical and cognitive functions. Future research and clinical practice should consider designing digital interventions and services that match the physical and cognitive capacities and preferences of middle-aged and older adults, thereby improving digital engagement and reducing the harms associated with digital exclusion. Policies should focus on expanding access, reducing financial barriers, and improving digital literacy. However, due to the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias, the results should be interpreted cautiously.
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.