Mobile phone text messages vs usual care: Fatal cardiovascular events (percentage of people having fatal cardiovascular events)
Mobile phone text messaging showed no clear difference in fatal cardiovascular events (percentage of people having fatal… compared with usual care (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Mobile phone text messaging vs usual care Fatal cardiovascular events (percentage of people having fatal cardiovascular events) · people with established arterial occlusive events Mobile phone text messaging showed no clear difference in fatal cardiovascular events (percentage of people having fatal… compared with usual care (low certainty). Mobile phone text messaging for medication adherence in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (2024) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 0.83 [0.47, 1.45] | 4 studies · 1654 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 medication adherence in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease 2024 · 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.