Digital Health Technologies for Risk Factor Management and Secondary Prevention After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.7 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology. Clinical practice Pub Date : 2026-12-01 Epub Date: 2026-10-01 DOI:10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200669
Shervin Badihian, Margarita Fedorova, Bradley Ashley Ong, Nicolas R Thompson, Neil Nero, Ken Uchino, Shumei Man
{"title":"Digital Health Technologies for Risk Factor Management and Secondary Prevention After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Shervin Badihian, Margarita Fedorova, Bradley Ashley Ong, Nicolas R Thompson, Neil Nero, Ken Uchino, Shumei Man","doi":"10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Digital health interventions are increasingly used in medicine to manage chronic conditions. However, the effectiveness, feasibility, and consistency of these interventions in poststroke risk factor management and secondary prevention remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of digital health-supported interventions on vascular risk factor control among stroke survivors. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through September 2025 for randomized, single-arm, and observational studies evaluating digital health interventions, defined as mobile health applications, wearable devices, or combined platforms, among adults with ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack. Outcomes of interest included systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lipid levels, weight, physical activity, medication adherence, quality of life, and clinical events. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported by ≥ 3 studies. Feasibility outcomes, including recruitment, retention, adherence, and usability were synthesized qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Twenty-nine studies encompassing 8,389 participants were included. Digital health interventions were associated with modest reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with control conditions, including usual care and minimal-intervention comparators (pooled between-group mean difference, -5.8 mm Hg; 95% CI -9.9 to -1.6). However, prediction intervals crossed the null value, and between-study heterogeneity was substantial. No consistent effects were observed for diastolic blood pressure, lipid levels, or weight. Reporting of physical activity, medication adherence, and quality-of-life outcomes was heterogeneous, precluding quantitative pooling, although most studies reported favorable trends. Overall feasibility was high, with an aggregate dropout rate of 3.6% (95% CI 3.2%-4.0%) and high user acceptability across studies. Most trials enrolled participants with mild functional impairment and short follow-up durations (median ≈3 months). Few studies were powered to assess recurrent stroke or mortality.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Digital health-supported interventions for secondary stroke prevention seem feasible and acceptable, with evidence of modest short-term improvements in blood pressure. However, clinical effectiveness across other vascular risk factors remains inconsistent. In addition, substantial heterogeneity, short follow-up, and limited high-quality evidence constrain causal inference and preclude conclusions regarding sustained clinical benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":19136,"journal":{"name":"Neurology. Clinical practice","volume":"16 6","pages":"e200669"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13631877/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology. Clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/CPJ.0000000000200669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Digital health interventions are increasingly used in medicine to manage chronic conditions. However, the effectiveness, feasibility, and consistency of these interventions in poststroke risk factor management and secondary prevention remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of digital health-supported interventions on vascular risk factor control among stroke survivors. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through September 2025 for randomized, single-arm, and observational studies evaluating digital health interventions, defined as mobile health applications, wearable devices, or combined platforms, among adults with ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, or transient ischemic attack. Outcomes of interest included systolic and diastolic blood pressure, lipid levels, weight, physical activity, medication adherence, quality of life, and clinical events. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for outcomes reported by ≥ 3 studies. Feasibility outcomes, including recruitment, retention, adherence, and usability were synthesized qualitatively.

Recent findings: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 8,389 participants were included. Digital health interventions were associated with modest reductions in systolic blood pressure compared with control conditions, including usual care and minimal-intervention comparators (pooled between-group mean difference, -5.8 mm Hg; 95% CI -9.9 to -1.6). However, prediction intervals crossed the null value, and between-study heterogeneity was substantial. No consistent effects were observed for diastolic blood pressure, lipid levels, or weight. Reporting of physical activity, medication adherence, and quality-of-life outcomes was heterogeneous, precluding quantitative pooling, although most studies reported favorable trends. Overall feasibility was high, with an aggregate dropout rate of 3.6% (95% CI 3.2%-4.0%) and high user acceptability across studies. Most trials enrolled participants with mild functional impairment and short follow-up durations (median ≈3 months). Few studies were powered to assess recurrent stroke or mortality.

Summary: Digital health-supported interventions for secondary stroke prevention seem feasible and acceptable, with evidence of modest short-term improvements in blood pressure. However, clinical effectiveness across other vascular risk factors remains inconsistent. In addition, substantial heterogeneity, short follow-up, and limited high-quality evidence constrain causal inference and preclude conclusions regarding sustained clinical benefit.

数字健康技术用于卒中后风险因素管理和二级预防:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
综述目的:数字健康干预措施越来越多地用于医学管理慢性病。然而,这些干预措施在卒中后危险因素管理和二级预防中的有效性、可行性和一致性仍不确定。我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估数字健康支持干预对中风幸存者血管危险因素控制的影响。我们系统地检索了MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL从成立到2025年9月的随机、单臂和观察性研究,评估了缺血性卒中、出血性卒中或短暂性缺血性发作的成人中数字健康干预措施,定义为移动健康应用程序、可穿戴设备或联合平台。研究结果包括收缩压和舒张压、血脂水平、体重、体力活动、药物依从性、生活质量和临床事件。对≥3项研究报告的结果进行随机效应荟萃分析。可行性结果,包括招募、保留、依从性和可用性进行定性综合。最近的发现:29项研究包括8389名参与者。与对照组相比,数字健康干预与收缩压适度降低相关,包括常规护理和最小干预比较(组间平均差为-5.8 mm Hg; 95% CI为-9.9至-1.6)。然而,预测区间跨越零值,研究间异质性很大。对舒张压、血脂水平或体重没有一致的影响。尽管大多数研究报告了有利的趋势,但体力活动、药物依从性和生活质量结果的报告是异质的,排除了定量汇总。总体可行性高,总退出率为3.6% (95% CI 3.2%-4.0%),各研究的用户接受度高。大多数试验纳入了轻度功能障碍和短随访时间(中位≈3个月)的参与者。很少有研究对卒中复发或死亡率进行评估。总结:数字健康支持的二级卒中预防干预措施似乎是可行和可接受的,有证据表明血压在短期内有适度的改善。然而,其他血管危险因素的临床疗效仍不一致。此外,大量的异质性、随访时间短和有限的高质量证据限制了因果推断,并排除了关于持续临床获益的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurology. Clinical practice
Neurology. Clinical practice CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Neurology® Genetics is an online open access journal publishing peer-reviewed reports in the field of neurogenetics. The journal publishes original articles in all areas of neurogenetics including rare and common genetic variations, genotype-phenotype correlations, outlier phenotypes as a result of mutations in known disease genes, and genetic variations with a putative link to diseases. Articles include studies reporting on genetic disease risk, pharmacogenomics, and results of gene-based clinical trials (viral, ASO, etc.). Genetically engineered model systems are not a primary focus of Neurology® Genetics, but studies using model systems for treatment trials, including well-powered studies reporting negative results, are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书