Virtual reality tools for training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A systematic review

Digital Health Interventions to Prevent Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have rapidly evolved and significantly revolutionized the health care system. The quadruple aims of health care (improving population health, enhancing consumer experience, enhancing health care provider [HCP] experience, and decreasing health costs) serve as a strategic guiding framework for DHIs. It is unknown how DHIs can impact the burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), as measured by the quadruple aims.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the effects of DHIs on improving the burden of T2DM, as measured by the quadruple aims.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 2014 to March 2024. Primary outcomes were the development of T2DM, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change, and blood glucose change (dysglycemia changes). Secondary outcomes were consumer experience, HCP experience, and health care costs. Outcomes were mapped to the quadruple aims. DHIs were categorized using the World Health Organization's DHI classification. For each study, DHI categories were assessed for their effects on each outcome, categorizing the effects as positive, negative, or neutral. The overall effects of each DHI category were determined by synthesizing all reported positive, neutral, or negative effects regardless of the number of studies supporting each effect. The Cochrane risk-of-bias version 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the ROBINS-I (risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions) tool was applied for nonrandomized studies.

RESULTS

In total, 53 papers were included. For the T2DM development outcome, the effects of DHIs were positive in 1 (1.9%) study and neutral in 9 (17%) studies, and there were insufficient data to assess in 4 (7.5%) studies. For the dysglycemia outcome, the effects were positive in 23 (43.4%) studies and neutral in 24 (45.3%) studies, and there were insufficient data in 6 (11.3%) studies. There were mixed effects on consumer experience (n=13, 24.5%) and a lack of studies reporting HCP experience (n=1, 1.9%) and health care costs (n=3, 5.7%). All studies that reported positive population health outcomes used a minimum of 2 distinct categories of DHIs. Among these successful studies, the one that reported delaying the development of T2DM and 16 (69.6%) of those reporting improvements in dysglycemia involved HCP interaction. Targeted communication with persons (TCP), personal health tracking (PHT), and telemedicine (TM) showed some evidence as a potentially useful tool for T2DM prevention and dysglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of DHIs on T2DM prevention, as measured by the quadruple aims, have not been comprehensively assessed, with proven benefits for population health, mixed results for consumer experience, and insufficient studies on HCP experience and health care costs. To maximize their effectiveness in preventing T2DM and managing dysglycemia, DHIs should be used in combination and strategically integrated with in-person or remote HCP interaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42024512690; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024512690.

Colon capsule endoscopy polyp detection rate vs colonoscopy polyp detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a modern, non-invasive method for large bowel visualization, offering a less invasive alternative to traditional colonoscopy (TC). While TC remains the gold standard for comprehensive large bowel assessment, including the detection and treatment of various conditions, the effectiveness of CCE in detecting polyps is less established.

AIM

To systematically review and compare the polyp detection rates (PDR) of CCE and TC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using four scientific databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE via EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE/PubMed. A standardized search command was utilized to ensure consistency. Full papers were retrieved if they compared PDR between CCE and TC and involved patients over 18 years old. A meta-analysis was then conducted using the meta package in R software.

RESULTS

Initially, 339 articles were identified, with 128 duplicates and 15 non-English articles excluded, leaving 196 for screening. After further exclusions, 9 articles were included in the review. The meta-analysis revealed minimal differences in PDR between CCE and TC. The pooled PDR for TC was 0.61 (95%CI: 0.48–0.72), and for CCE, it was 0.61 (95%CI: 0.48–0.73). The overall comparison of the pooled PDR of both methods was 0.96 (95%CI: 0.90–1.02), indicating that CCE is non-inferior to TC.

CONCLUSION

CCE has emerged as a modern and safe diagnostic alternative to TC for polyp detection, demonstrating non-inferiority when compared to the conventional method.