Dataset Information

Recent Academic Research on Clinically Relevant Digital Measures: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Digital clinical measures collected via various digital sensing technologies such as smartphones, smartwatches, wearables, ingestibles, and implantables are increasingly used by individuals and clinicians to capture health outcomes or behavioral and physiological characteristics of individuals. Although academia is taking an active role in evaluating digital sensing products, academic contributions to advancing the safe, effective, ethical, and equitable use of digital clinical measures are poorly characterized.

Objective

We performed a systematic review to characterize the nature of academic research on digital clinical measures and to compare and contrast the types of sensors used and the sources of funding support for specific subareas of this research.

Methods

We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles reporting US-led academic research on digital clinical measures between January 2019 and February 2021. We screened each publication against specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and categorized research studies based on the types of academic research, sensors used, and funding sources. Finally, we compared and contrasted the funding support for these specific subareas of research and sensor types.

Results

The search retrieved 4240 articles of interest. Following the screening, 295 articles remained for data extraction and categorization. The top five research subareas included operations research (research analysis; n=225, 76%), analytical validation (n=173, 59%), usability and utility (data visualization; n=123, 42%), verification (n=93, 32%), and clinical validation (n=83, 28%). The three most underrepresented areas of research into digital clinical measures were ethics (n=0, 0%), security (n=1, 0.5%), and data rights and governance (n=1, 0.5%). Movement and activity trackers were the most commonly studied sensor type, and physiological (mechanical) sensors were the least frequently studied. We found that government agencies are providing the most funding for research on digital clinical measures (n=192, 65%), followed by independent foundations (n=109, 37%) and industries (n=56, 19%), with the remaining 12% (n=36) of these studies completely unfunded.

Conclusions

Specific subareas of academic research related to digital clinical measures are not keeping pace with the rapid expansion and adoption of digital sensing products. An integrated and coordinated effort is required across academia, academic partners, and academic funders to establish the field of digital clinical measures as an evidence-based field worthy of our trust.

SUBMITTER: Shandhi MMH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8482196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Statement of problemFacial prosthesis research uses a wide variety of outcome measures, which results in challenges when comparing the effectiveness of interventions among studies. Consensus is lacking regarding the most appropriate and meaningful outcome measures to use in facial prosthesis research to capture important perspectives.PurposeThe purpose of the systematic review was to identify and synthesize outcome measures used in facial prosthesis research.Material and methodsElectronic searches were performed in 11 databases (including nonpeer-reviewed literature). The citations were searched, and expert societies were contacted to identify additional studies. Inclusion criteria comprised studies of participants with facial defects who required or had received prosthetic rehabilitation with an external facial prosthesis. Exclusion criteria comprised participants with ocular prostheses, case reports, case series with fewer than 5 participants, laboratory-based studies, and studies published before 1980. Study selection was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer. Outcome measures were synthesized with a categorization approach based on the perspective, theme, and subtheme of the outcome measures. Quality assessment was performed with an appraisal tool that enabled evaluation of studies with diverse designs.ResultsDatabase searching identified 13 058 records, and 7406 remained after duplications were removed. After initial screening, 189 potentially relevant records remained, and 186 full texts were located (98% retrieval rate). After full-text screening, 124 records were excluded. Citation searches and contact with expert societies identified 4 further records. In total, 69 articles (grouped into 65 studies) were included. Studies were categorized as per the perspective of their outcome measures, with the following findings: patient-reported (74% of studies), clinical indicators (34%), clinician-reported (8%), multiple viewpoints (6%), and independent observer-reported (3%). Patient-reported outcome measures included tools to assess satisfaction, quality of life, and psychologic health. Variability in the choice of outcome measures was evident among the studies, with many self-designed, unvalidated, condition-specific questionnaires reported. A greater number of outcome measure themes emerged over time; themes such as service delivery and health state utility have recently been evaluated.ConclusionsOver the past 40 years, facial prosthesis research has focused on patient-reported outcome measures. Outcome measures relating to other perspectives have been used less frequently, although new themes appear to be emerging in the literature. Future research should use outcome measures with appropriate measurement properties for use with facial prosthetics.

Project description:Digital storytelling is an arts-based research method with potential to elucidate complex narratives in a compelling manner, increase participant engagement, and enhance the meaning of research findings. This method involves the creation of a 3- to 5-min video that integrates multimedia materials including photos, participant voices, drawings, and music. Given the significant potential of digital storytelling to meaningfully capture and share participants' lived experiences, a systematic review of its use in healthcare research is crucial to develop an in-depth understanding of how researchers have used this method, with an aim to refine and further inform future iterations of its use.We aim to identify and synthesize evidence on the use, impact, and ethical considerations of using digital storytelling in health research. The review questions are as follows: (1) What is known about the purpose, definition, use (processes), and contexts of digital storytelling as part of the research process in health research? (2) What impact does digital storytelling have upon the research process, knowledge development, and healthcare practice? (3) What are the key ethical considerations when using digital storytelling within qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research studies? Key databases and the grey literature will be searched from 1990 to the present for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that utilized digital storytelling as part of the research process. Two independent reviewers will screen and critically appraise relevant articles with established quality appraisal tools. We will extract narrative data from all studies with a standardized data extraction form and conduct a thematic analysis of the data. To facilitate innovative dissemination through social media, we will develop a visual infographic and three digital stories to illustrate the review findings, as well as methodological and ethical implications.In collaboration with national and international experts in digital storytelling, we will synthesize key evidence about digital storytelling that is critical to the development of methodological and ethical expertise about arts-based research methods. We will also develop recommendations for incorporating digital storytelling in a meaningful and ethical manner into the research process.PROSPERO registry number CRD42017068002 .

Project description:BackgroundThe major metabolic complications of obesity and type 2 diabetes may be prevented and managed with dietary modification. The use of sweeteners that provide little or no calories may help to achieve this objective.MethodsWe did a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative effectiveness of sweetener additives using Bayesian techniques. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CAB Global were searched to January 2011. Randomized trials comparing sweeteners in obese, diabetic, and healthy populations were selected. Outcomes of interest included weight change, energy intake, lipids, glycated hemoglobin, markers of insulin resistance and glycemic response. Evidence-based items potentially indicating risk of bias were assessed.ResultsOf 3,666 citations, we identified 53 eligible randomized controlled trials with 1,126 participants. In diabetic participants, fructose reduced 2-hour blood glucose concentrations by 4.81 mmol/L (95% CI 3.29, 6.34) compared to glucose. Two-hour blood glucose concentration data comparing hypocaloric sweeteners to sucrose or high fructose corn syrup were inconclusive. Based on two ≤10-week trials, we found that non-caloric sweeteners reduced energy intake compared to the sucrose groups by approximately 250-500 kcal/day (95% CI 153, 806). One trial found that participants in the non-caloric sweetener group had a decrease in body mass index compared to an increase in body mass index in the sucrose group (-0.40 vs 0.50 kg/m2, and -1.00 vs 1.60 kg/m2, respectively). No randomized controlled trials showed that high fructose corn syrup or fructose increased levels of cholesterol relative to other sweeteners.ConclusionsConsidering the public health importance of obesity and its consequences; the clearly relevant role of diet in the pathogenesis and maintenance of obesity; and the billions of dollars spent on non-caloric sweeteners, little high-quality clinical research has been done. Studies are needed to determine the role of hypocaloric sweeteners in a wider population health strategy to prevent, reduce and manage obesity and its consequences.

Project description:Community involvement in HIV research has increased over recent years, enhancing community-academic partnerships. Several terms have been used to describe community participation in research. Clarification is needed to determine whether these terms are synonymous or actually describe different research processes. In addition, it remains unclear if the role that communities play in the actual research process follows the recommendations given in theoretical frameworks of community-academia research.The objective of this study is to review the existing terms and definitions regarding community-academic partnerships and assess how studies are implementing these in relation to conceptual definitions.A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Two reviewers independently assessed each article, applying the following inclusion criteria: the article must be published in English before 2013; it must provide an explicit definition and/or defining methodology for a term describing research with a community component; and it has to refer to HIV or AIDS, reproductive health and/or STDs. When disagreements about the relevance of an article emerged, a third reviewer was involved until concordance was reached. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA for content and thematic analyses while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Community feedback on data analysis and presentation of results was also incorporated.In total, 246 articles were retrieved, 159 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of studies that included community participation in the field of HIV research increased between 1991 and 2012, and the terms used to describe these activities have changed, moving away from action research (AR) to participatory action research (PAR), community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with the latter being the most commonly used term. While definitions of all terms had common characteristics (e.g. participation of community in research process), they varied with regard to the emphasis placed on these characteristics. The nature of community participation in reviewed studies differed considerably from that described in theoretical models.This study indicates the increase of participatory approaches in HIV research and underlines the need for clarification of terms and a framework providing orientation to community-academia partnerships.