期刊文章@ 14388871 %I JMIR出版公司%V 16% N卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析 4% P 110% T躯体疾病电子健康干预的有效性和成本效益:系统综述和元分析%A Elbert,Niels J %A van Os-Medendorp,Harmieke %A van Renselaar,Wilco %A Ekeland,Anne G %A Hakkaart-van Roijen,Leona %A Raat,Hein %A Nijsten,Tamar EC %A Pasmans,Suzanne GMA +鹿特丹伊拉斯谟大学医学中心(儿科)皮肤科，鹿特丹邮政信箱2040，鹿特丹，3000 CA，荷兰，31 107034580，s.pasmans@erasmusmc.nl %K e - health %K远程医疗%K远程医疗%K回顾%K计划有效性%K成本效益%D 2014年%7 16.04.2014年%9回顾%J J医疗互联网Res %G英文%X背景:e - health有可能提高医疗质量并可能降低医疗成本。然而，2010年发表的一项系统综述得出结论，仍然缺乏关于电子卫生干预措施益处的高质量证据。目的:我们对躯体疾病患者电子健康干预的有效性/成本效益的系统综述和荟萃分析进行了系统综述，以分析最近的研究结果是否以及在多大程度上支持或不同于以往的结论。方法:在PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和Scopus进行文献检索，对2009年8月至2012年12月发表的电子健康干预措施进行系统综述和荟萃分析。根据预设的纳入和排除标准对文章进行相关性筛选。对剩余文献的引用进行筛选，以寻找其他文献。在提取数据之前，使用系统评价和元分析(PRISMA)首选报告项目对纳入的论文进行批判性评价。根据纳入文章的作者得出的结论，综述和荟萃分析被分为3组中的1组:合适的，有希望的，或有效性/成本效益证据有限。 Cases of uncertainty were resolved by consensus discussion. Effect sizes were extracted from papers that included a meta-analysis. To compare our results with previous findings, a trend analysis was performed. Results: Our literature searches yielded 31 eligible reviews, of which 20 (65%) reported on costs. Seven papers (23%) concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective, 13 (42%) underlined that evidence is promising, and others found limited or inconsistent proof. Methodological quality of the included reviews and meta-analyses was generally considered high. Trend analysis showed a considerable accumulation of literature on eHealth. However, a similar percentage of papers concluded that eHealth is effective/cost-effective or evidence is at least promising (65% vs 62%). Reviews focusing primarily on children or family caregivers still remained scarce. Although a pooled (subgroup) analysis of aggregate data from randomized studies was performed in a higher percentage of more recently published reviews (45% vs 27%), data on economic outcome measures were less frequently reported (65% vs 85%). Conclusions: The number of reviews and meta-analyses on eHealth interventions in patients with somatic diseases has increased considerably in recent years. Most articles show eHealth is effective/cost-effective or at least suggest evidence is promising, which is consistent with previous findings. Although many researchers advocate larger, well-designed, controlled studies, we believe attention should be given to the development and evaluation of strategies to implement effective/cost-effective eHealth initiatives in daily practice, rather than to further strengthen current evidence. %M 24739471 %R 10.2196/jmir.2790 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2014/4/e110/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2790 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24739471