Following the PRISMA guidelines, records from PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically screened to select original articles in which interventional or observational designs were used to study technologies\' applications in samples of frail, comorbid, or multimorbid patients.
Thirty-four articles met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies used diagnostic accuracy designs to test assessment procedures or retrospective cohort designs to build predictive models. A minority were randomized or non-randomized interventional studies. Quality evaluation revealed a high risk of bias for observational studies, while a low risk of bias for interventional studies.
The majority of the reviewed articles use an observational design mainly to study diagnostic procedures and suffer from a high risk of bias. The scarce presence of methodologically robust interventional studies may suggest that the field is in its infancy. Methodological considerations will be presented on how to standardize procedures and research quality in this field.
方法:遵循PRISMA指南,PubMed的记录,EMBASE,和WebofScience进行了系统筛选,以选择原始文章,其中使用了介入或观察性设计来研究技术在脆弱样本中的应用,共病,或者多病人。
结果:34篇符合纳入标准。大多数研究使用诊断准确性设计来测试评估程序或回顾性队列设计来构建预测模型。少数为随机或非随机介入研究。质量评估显示,观察性研究存在很高的偏倚风险,而介入研究的偏倚风险较低。
结论:大多数审查的文章主要使用观察性设计来研究诊断程序,并且存在较高的偏倚风险。方法学上健壮的介入研究很少,这可能表明该领域处于起步阶段。将介绍如何标准化该领域的程序和研究质量的方法。