Question · asked by 1 review
Mobile phone text messages vs usual care: ART adherence
Mobile phone text messages leads to lower ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Text messages vs. standard care… compared with standard care (high certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mobile phone text messages vs standard care ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Text messages vs. standard care (overall) · Patients with HIV infection, on ART Mobile phone text messages leads to lower ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Text messages vs. standard care… compared with standard care (high certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.82 [0.72, 0.94] | 2 studies · 966 participants | High |
Mobile phone text messages vs standard care ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Weekly text messages vs. standard care (overall) · Patients with HIV infection, on ART Mobile phone text messages leads to lower ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Weekly text messages vs. standard care… compared with standard care (high certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.78 [0.68, 0.89] | 2 studies · 898 participants | High |
Mobile phone text messages vs standard care ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Short weekly messages vs. standard care · Patients with HIV infection, on ART Mobile phone text messages leads to lower ART adherence at 48‐52 weeks: Short weekly messages vs. standard care compared with standard care (high certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.77 [0.66, 0.9] | 2 studies · 750 participants | High |
Mobile phone text messages vs standard care ART adherence at 48 weeks: Long weekly messages vs. standard care · Patients with HIV infection, on ART Mobile phone text messages showed no clear difference in ART adherence at 48 weeks: Long weekly messages vs. standard care compared with standard care (low certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.79 [0.6, 1.04] | 1 study · 213 participants | Low |
Mobile phone text messages vs standard care ART adherence at 48 weeks: Short daily messages vs. standard care · Patients with HIV infection, on ART Mobile phone text messages showed no clear difference in ART adherence at 48 weeks: Short daily messages vs. standard care compared with standard care (low certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1 [0.79, 1.27] | 1 study · 209 participants | Low |
Mobile phone text messages vs standard care ART adherence at 48 weeks: Long daily messages vs. standard care · Patients with HIV infection, on ART Mobile phone text messages showed no clear difference in ART adherence at 48 weeks: Long daily messages vs. standard care compared with standard care (low certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.98 [0.77, 1.24] | 1 study · 211 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile phone text messaging for promoting adherence to antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV infection 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.