ReviewFrontiers in digital health2026
Health economic evaluations of digital health technologies-a rapid review of applied methods.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Digital health technologies (DHTs) offer significant potential to improve healthcare delivery, efficiency and outcomes. Despite increasing uptake, their full potential remains underused, partly because existing approaches and regulatory frameworks for generating economic evidence are not yet adequately adapted to the specific characteristics of DHTs. Methods: This rapid review examined methods applied in economic evaluations (EEs) of DHTs of studies published between 2020 and 2024. Following Cochrane guidelines, searches were performed in PubMed and Scopus, yielding 1254 unique records, of which 51 primary studies met inclusion criteria. Methodological characteristics, including general and EE-specific aspects, were stratified by EE type and underlying study design, distinguishing between EEs as a primary or secondary objective and model-based EEs. The included studies were assessed using RoB2, ROBINS-I, CHEQUE, and CHEERS-(AI). Results: Most EEs were based on randomized controlled trials, and employed conventional methods developed for non-DHT interventions. The included EEs showed considerable heterogeneity in perspectives, cost categories, and handling of uncertainty. Reporting and methodological quality were inconsistent, including incomplete descriptions of the DHTs. Key limitations included limited study registration and transparency, and bias from underlying studies, particularly when multiple data sources were used. Important DHT-specific aspects, such as technology life cycles and real-world transferability across user groups, were rarely addressed. Discussion: The findings highlight a fragmented landscape of methodological and reporting practices and underscore the need for adequately adapted, DHT-specific economic evaluation methods that better reflect the unique characteristics of DHTs and generate robust, decision-relevant evidence.
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.