Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care: FEV1 % predicted
Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) showed no clear difference in FEV1: mean FEV1 % predicted at end of study compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care FEV1: mean FEV1 % predicted at end of study · people with CF aged 16 years and over Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) showed no clear difference in FEV1: mean FEV1 % predicted at end of study compared with usual care (low certainty). Digital technology for monitoring adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | MD 3.7 | 1 study · 556 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital technology for monitoring adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis 2023 · 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.