Cochrane · systematic review · CD013733
Digital technology for monitoring adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis
Smith, S, Calthorpe, R, Herbert, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic DisordersAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 30%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 30%Moderate 4 · 40%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Digital technology (TIM) compared with standard treatment (TBM) for monitoring adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis
Population: children aged 5 to 16 years
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adherence to the inhaled treatment: Digital technology (TIM) vs standard treatment (TBM) | MD 24 [2.95, 45.05] | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Treatment burden Digital technology (TIM) vs standard treatment (TBM) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
QoL Digital technology (TIM) vs standard treatment (TBM) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
FEV1 (mean change from baseline, % predicted) Digital technology (TIM) vs standard treatment (TBM) | MD 1 | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Number of pulmonary exacerbations Digital technology (TIM) vs standard treatment (TBM) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) compared with usual care for monitoring adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis
Population: people with CF aged 16 years and over
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adherence to the inhaled treatment: percentage adherence Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care | MD 18 [12.9, 23.1] | 1 study · 588 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Treatment burden: CFQ‐R treatment burden domain score (higher score is better) Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care | MD 5.1 [1.79, 8.41] | 1 study · 539 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
QoL: CFQ‐R domain scores at end of study Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care | MD 3.2 | 1 study · 538 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
FEV1: mean FEV1 % predicted at end of study Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care | MD 3.7 | 1 study · 556 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Number of pulmonary exacerbations Digital technology (web‐based platform CFHealthHub) vs usual care | rate ratio 0.92 | 1 study · 607 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |