Qianying Wang, Xiqian Huo, Jianlan Cui, Jie Li, Xueke Bai, Chaoqun Wu, Qian Zhang, Dianjianyi Sun, Jie Zhao
{"title":"心血管疾病数字健康临床试验中患者报告结果的系统评估","authors":"Qianying Wang, Xiqian Huo, Jianlan Cui, Jie Li, Xueke Bai, Chaoqun Wu, Qian Zhang, Dianjianyi Sun, Jie Zhao","doi":"10.1038/s41746-025-01637-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in digital health (DH) trials for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remains unknown. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials that tested DH interventions in CVDs from 2004 to 2024. The search identified 8037 trials, with 673 eligible trials included in the analysis. Among these, 321 trials (48%) incorporated PROs. The number of DH trials and the use of PROs have shown a significant upward trend. Phone-based interventions predominated (38%), mostly targeting hypertension (38%) and heart failure (27%). Behavioral interventions showed higher prevalence of PROs’ usage (1.24 [1.04–1.48]), while trials for diagnostic or screening purpose (0.39 [0.20–0.77]) utilized PROs less frequently. Only 15% of trials reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov, while 58% were published in PubMed after completion. Despite DH trial expansion, PRO integration remains insufficient, especially in trials where clinical and patient perspectives are important in informing treatment decisions. Timely results dissemination is critical to improving transparency.</p>","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of digital health in cardiovascular diseases\",\"authors\":\"Qianying Wang, Xiqian Huo, Jianlan Cui, Jie Li, Xueke Bai, Chaoqun Wu, Qian Zhang, Dianjianyi Sun, Jie Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41746-025-01637-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in digital health (DH) trials for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remains unknown. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials that tested DH interventions in CVDs from 2004 to 2024. The search identified 8037 trials, with 673 eligible trials included in the analysis. Among these, 321 trials (48%) incorporated PROs. The number of DH trials and the use of PROs have shown a significant upward trend. Phone-based interventions predominated (38%), mostly targeting hypertension (38%) and heart failure (27%). Behavioral interventions showed higher prevalence of PROs’ usage (1.24 [1.04–1.48]), while trials for diagnostic or screening purpose (0.39 [0.20–0.77]) utilized PROs less frequently. Only 15% of trials reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov, while 58% were published in PubMed after completion. Despite DH trial expansion, PRO integration remains insufficient, especially in trials where clinical and patient perspectives are important in informing treatment decisions. Timely results dissemination is critical to improving transparency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Digital Medicine\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Digital Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01637-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01637-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of digital health in cardiovascular diseases
The integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in digital health (DH) trials for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remains unknown. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials that tested DH interventions in CVDs from 2004 to 2024. The search identified 8037 trials, with 673 eligible trials included in the analysis. Among these, 321 trials (48%) incorporated PROs. The number of DH trials and the use of PROs have shown a significant upward trend. Phone-based interventions predominated (38%), mostly targeting hypertension (38%) and heart failure (27%). Behavioral interventions showed higher prevalence of PROs’ usage (1.24 [1.04–1.48]), while trials for diagnostic or screening purpose (0.39 [0.20–0.77]) utilized PROs less frequently. Only 15% of trials reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov, while 58% were published in PubMed after completion. Despite DH trial expansion, PRO integration remains insufficient, especially in trials where clinical and patient perspectives are important in informing treatment decisions. Timely results dissemination is critical to improving transparency.
期刊介绍:
npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics.
The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.