ReviewOxford open digital health2026
The impact of patient-facing digital health interventions on patient safety outcomes: a meta-analysis of meta-analyses.
Review in Oxford open 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient safety is a critical concern in healthcare, with preventable adverse events contributing significantly to morbidity and mortality. Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare systems to improve patient safety outcomes. However, their effectiveness remains unclear. This study focuses on DHIs adopted by patients and, in detail, it aims to assess the effectiveness of patient-facing DHIs in improving patient safety outcomes, including medication adherence, healthcare utilization, falls, mortality, adverse events, relapse rate, and readmissions. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and it is registered in PROSPERO. The eligible meta-analyses were identified across major databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, EPISTEMONIKOS, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, PsychARTICLES) from 2010 until 2024. The quantitative synthesis adopted a random-effects model. The corrected covered area method quantified the studies' overlap and heterogeneity was assessed using the I
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.