Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Using E-health Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 8.3 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Anish J Kuriakose Kuzhiyanjal, Gaurav B Nigam, George A Antoniou, Francis A Farraye, Raymond K Cross, Jimmy K Limdi
{"title":"Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Using E-health Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Anish J Kuriakose Kuzhiyanjal, Gaurav B Nigam, George A Antoniou, Francis A Farraye, Raymond K Cross, Jimmy K Limdi","doi":"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Technological advances have provided innovative, adaptive, and responsive models of care for inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. We conducted a systematic review to compare e-health interventions with standard care in management of IBD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched electronic databases for randomised, controlled trials [RCT] comparing e-health interventions with standard care for patients with IBD. Effect measures were standardised mean difference [SMD], odds ratio [OR], or rate ratio [RR], calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and random-effects models. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the GRADE framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen RCTs [n = 3111; 1754 e-health and 1357 controls] were identified. The difference in disease activity scores (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.28) and clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61) between e-health interventions and standard care were not statistically significant. Higher quality of life [QoL] [SMD 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35) and IBD knowledge [SMD 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.36] scores were noted in the e-health group, and self-efficacy levels [SMD -0.09, 95% CI: -0.22-0.05] were comparable. E-health patients had fewer office [RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93] and emergency [RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51- 0.95] visits, with no statistically significant difference in endoscopic procedures, total health care encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. The trials were judged to be at high risk of bias or to have some concerns for disease remission. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>E-health technologies may have a role in value-based care in IBD.</p>","PeriodicalId":15547,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crohns & Colitis","volume":" ","pages":"1596-1613"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10637047/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crohns & Colitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad075","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background and aims: Technological advances have provided innovative, adaptive, and responsive models of care for inflammatory bowel diseases [IBD]. We conducted a systematic review to compare e-health interventions with standard care in management of IBD.

Methods: We searched electronic databases for randomised, controlled trials [RCT] comparing e-health interventions with standard care for patients with IBD. Effect measures were standardised mean difference [SMD], odds ratio [OR], or rate ratio [RR], calculated using the inverse variance or Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and random-effects models. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was appraised with the GRADE framework.

Results: Fourteen RCTs [n = 3111; 1754 e-health and 1357 controls] were identified. The difference in disease activity scores (SMD 0.09, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.09-0.28) and clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61) between e-health interventions and standard care were not statistically significant. Higher quality of life [QoL] [SMD 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35) and IBD knowledge [SMD 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10-0.36] scores were noted in the e-health group, and self-efficacy levels [SMD -0.09, 95% CI: -0.22-0.05] were comparable. E-health patients had fewer office [RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93] and emergency [RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51- 0.95] visits, with no statistically significant difference in endoscopic procedures, total health care encounters, corticosteroid use, and IBD related hospitalisation or surgery. The trials were judged to be at high risk of bias or to have some concerns for disease remission. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low.

Conclusion: E-health technologies may have a role in value-based care in IBD.

使用电子健康技术管理炎症性肠病:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景和目的:技术进步为炎症性肠病(IBD)提供了创新、适应性和反应性的治疗模式。我们进行了一项系统综述,比较了电子卫生干预与IBD管理的标准护理。方法:我们在电子数据库中搜索随机对照试验[RCT],比较电子卫生干预与IBD患者的标准护理。效果测量采用标准化平均差(SMD)、优势比(OR)或比率比(RR),采用方差逆或Mantel-Haenszel统计方法和随机效应模型计算。使用Cochrane工具第2版来评估偏倚风险。用GRADE框架评价证据的确定性。结果:14项随机对照试验[n = 3111;确定了1754个电子保健和1357个对照]。电子健康干预与标准治疗在疾病活动度评分(SMD = 0.09, 95%可信区间[CI]: -0.09-0.28)和临床缓解(优势比[OR] 1.12, 95% CI: 0.78-1.61)方面的差异无统计学意义。电子健康组的生活质量[QoL] [SMD = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.05-0.35]和IBD知识[SMD = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.10-0.36]得分较高,自我效能水平[SMD = -0.09, 95% CI = -0.22-0.05]具有可比性。电子医疗患者的办公室就诊[RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93]和急诊就诊[RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51- 0.95]较少,在内窥镜手术、总医疗就诊、皮质类固醇使用和IBD相关住院或手术方面没有统计学上的显著差异。这些试验被判定为具有高偏倚风险或对疾病缓解存在一些担忧。证据的确定性为中等或低。结论:电子卫生技术可能在IBD的价值护理中发挥作用。
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
Journal of Crohns & Colitis
Journal of Crohns & Colitis 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
1048
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Crohns and Colitis is concerned with the dissemination of knowledge on clinical, basic science and innovative methods related to inflammatory bowel diseases. The journal publishes original articles, review papers, editorials, leading articles, viewpoints, case reports, innovative methods and letters to the editor.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信