背景:这项横断面研究调查了Cochrane关于数字健康技术的评论的在线传播。
方法:我们搜索了Cochrane系统评论数据库,该数据库从开始到2023年5月。Cochrane对任何人群的评论(P),任何数字技术支持的干预或概念(I),任何或没有比较(C),并包括任何健康结果(O)。关于评论特征的数据(书目信息,PICO,和证据质量)和传播策略被提取和处理。传播是使用Cochrane网站上的评论信息和Altmetric数据进行评估的,这些数据追踪了非学术在线渠道中学术出版物的提及。数据采用描述性统计和二元逻辑回归分析。
结果:在搜索中确定的170条记录中,100条Cochrane评论,2005年至2023年出版的,包括在内。评论侧重于消费者(如患者、n=86),任何年龄的人(n=44),和临床人群(n=68)。所有评论都涉及数字技术支持的任何设备的干预措施或概念(n=73),移动设备(n=17),或计算机(n=10)。结果集中在疾病治疗上(n=56),健康促进和疾病预防(n=27),或护理交付管理(n=17)。所有评论包括1-132项研究,一半包括1-10项研究。在69篇综述中进行了荟萃分析,在46篇综述中,至少一项结局的证据确定性被评为高或中.根据Cochrane指南,所有评论都有简单的语言摘要(PLS),有3-14种语言版本.评论主要通过X/Twitter(n=99)和Facebook(n=69)传播(即在线提及)。总的来说,在Altmetric数据追踪的所有研究产出中,多达25%的研究中提到了51条评论,5%的研究中提到了49条评论。传播(即更高的Altmetric分数)与书目审查特征(即较早的出版年份和PLS以更多语言提供)相关,但不具有证据质量(即证据评级的确定性,研究的数量,或综述中进行的荟萃分析)。
结论:在线关注Cochrane关于数字健康技术的评论。对于较旧的评论和具有更多PLS翻译的评论,传播率更高。需要采取措施改善基于证据质量的Cochrane评论的传播。
背景:该研究在开放科学框架(https://osf.io/mpw8u/)上进行了前瞻性注册。
BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional
study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on
review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using
review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic
review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review).
CONCLUSIONS: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality.
BACKGROUND: The
study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).