背景:一些系统评价已经讨论了数字技术在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)治疗和监测中的应用。
目的:本研究旨在评估系统评价是否考虑了性别的影响,性别,通过对此类系统评价的概述,了解数字技术治疗和监测COPD的结果。本综述的目的是(1)描述评论中使用的性别或性别的定义;(2)确定是否考虑性别,性别,或年龄是在审查中计划的;(3)确定性别,性别,或年龄在审查结果中报告;(4)确定性别,性别,或年龄纳入对临床实践的影响;(5)创建证据图,以制定基于性别的COPD个性化临床建议,性别,或年龄多样性。
方法:MEDLINE,Cochrane图书馆,认识论,WebofScience,并检索纳入的系统评价的参考书目至2022年6月.纳入基于PICOS框架:(1)人群(COPD),(2)干预(任何数字技术),(3)比较(任何),(4)结果(任何),(5)研究类型(系统评价)。研究由2位作者根据标题和摘要以及全文筛选独立选择。数据由一位作者提取,并由另一位作者检查。数据项包括系统评价特征;PICOS标准;以及与性别相关的变量,性别,或年龄。系统评价使用评估系统评价的测量工具,版本2(AMSTAR2)。数据使用描述性统计进行综合。
结果:在1439条记录中,本概述包括2010年至2022年发布的30篇系统综述。根据AMSTAR2,对30项审查中的25项(83%)的结果的信心极低。评论的重点是可能取决于性别的用户结果,性别,或年龄,如疗效或有效性(25/30,83%)和接受度,满意,或对COPD数字技术的依从性(3/30,10%)。评论报告了主要研究特征中的性别或性别(19/30系统评论)或年龄(25/30系统评论)。然而,30条评论中只有1条将年龄纳入亚组分析,30篇评论中有3篇确定了性的影响,性别,或年龄作为证据缺口。
结论:本概述表明,性别的影响,性别,在30项用于COPD治疗和监测的数字技术的系统评价中,很少考虑年龄.此外,系统评价没有纳入性别,性别,也没有年龄对临床实践的影响。我们建议未来的系统评价应该(1)评估性的影响,性别,或年龄对数字技术治疗和监测COPD结果的影响;(2)更好地遵守报告指南,以提高对审查结果的信心.
背景:PROSPEROCRD42022322924;https://www.crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/display_record.php?RecordID=322924。
■RR2-10.2196/40538。
Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity.
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics.
Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps.
This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results.
PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924.
RR2-10.2196/40538.