Digital Health Technologies for Long-term Self-management of Osteoporosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is the fourth most common chronic disease worldwide. The adoption of preventative measures and effective self-management interventions can help improve bone health. Mobile health (mHealth) technologies can play a key role in the care and self-management of patients with osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE: This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available mHealth apps targeting osteoporosis self-management, aiming to determine the current status, gaps, and challenges that future research could address, as well as propose appropriate recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review of all English articles was conducted, in addition to a survey of all apps available in iOS and Android app stores as of May 2021. A comprehensive literature search (2010 to May 2021) of PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore was conducted. Articles were included if they described apps dedicated to or useful for osteoporosis (targeting self-management, nutrition, physical activity, and risk assessment) delivered on smartphone devices for adults aged ≥18 years. Of the 32 articles, a random effects meta-analysis was performed on 13 (41%) studies of randomized controlled trials, whereas the 19 (59%) remaining studies were only included in the narrative synthesis as they did not provide enough data. RESULTS: In total, 3906 unique articles were identified. Of these 3906 articles, 32 (0.81%) articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. The 32 studies comprised 14,235 participants, of whom, on average, 69.5% (n=9893) were female, with a mean age of 49.8 (SD 17.8) years. The app search identified 23 relevant apps for osteoporosis self-management. The meta-analysis revealed that mHealth-supported interventions resulted in a significant reduction in pain (Hedges g -1.09, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.45) and disability (Hedges g -0.77, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.05). The posttreatment effect of the digital intervention was significant for physical function (Hedges g 2.54, 95% CI -4.08 to 4.08) but nonsignificant for well-being (Hedges g 0.17, 95% CI -1.84 to 2.17), physical activity (Hedges g 0.09, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.50), anxiety (Hedges g -0.29, 95% CI -6.11 to 5.53), fatigue (Hedges g -0.34, 95% CI -5.84 to 5.16), calcium (Hedges g -0.05, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.50), vitamin D intake (Hedges g 0.10, 95% CI -4.05 to 4.26), and trabecular score (Hedges g 0.06, 95% CI -1.00 to 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis apps have the potential to support and improve the management of the disease and its symptoms; they also appear to be valuable tools for patients and health professionals. However, most of the apps that are currently available lack clinically validated evidence of their efficacy and focus on a limited number of symptoms. A more holistic and personalized approach within a cocreation design ecosystem is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021269399; https://tinyurl.com/2sw454a9.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".