Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Computer‐ und Mobiltechnologie‐Interventionen für das Selbstmanagement bei chronisch obstruktiver Lungenerkrankung

Appendices

Appendix 1. Search strategy to identify relevant trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register

#1 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive Explode All

#2 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Bronchitis, Chronic

#3 (obstruct*) near3 (pulmonary or lung* or airway* or airflow* or bronch* or respirat*)

#4 COPD:MISC1

#5 (COPD OR COAD OR COBD):TI,AB,KW

#6 #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5

#7 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Cellular Phone

#8 MeSH DESCRIPTOR MP3‐Player

#9 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Computers, Handheld

#10 (cell* or mobile*) near3 phone*

#11 handheld* or hand‐held*

#12 smartphone* or smart‐phone*

#13 PDA

#14 personal* near3 digital*

#15 "Palm OS" or "Palm Pre classic"

#16 blackberry

#17 nokia

#18 symbian

#19 windows near3 (mobile* or phone*)

#20 INQ

#21 HTC

#22 sidekick

#23 android

#24 iphone*

#25 ipad*

#26 ipod*

#27 tablet near3 (device* or comput*)

#28 mhealth or m‐health or "m health"

#29 "mobile health"

#30 e‐health or ehealth or "e health"

#31 app* near3 (smartphone* or smart‐phone or mobile* or phone*)

#32 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Computers Explode All

#33 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Computer‐Assisted Instruction

#34 (computer* or PC or desk‐top*):ti,ab

#35 Skype*

#36 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Telemedicine Explode All

#37 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Videoconferencing Explode All

#38 (internet* or interactive):ti,ab,kw

#39 #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34 or #35 or #36 or #37 or #38

#40 MeSH DESCRIPTOR Self Care Explode All

#41 self‐manag*:ti,ab,kw

#42 (self NEXT manag*):ti,ab,kw

#43 (behavior* or behaviour*) near3 change*

#44 #40 or #41 or #42 or #43

#45 #6 and (#39 or #44)

[Note: in search line #4 MISC1 denotes the field in which the reference has been coded for condition, in this case, COPD]

Appendix 2. Sources and search methods for the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR)

Electronic searches: core databases

Database

Frequency of search

CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library)

Monthly

MEDLINE (Ovid)

Weekly

Embase (Ovid)

Weekly

PsycINFO (Ovid)

Monthly

CINAHL (EBSCO)

Monthly

AMED (EBSCO)

Monthly

Handsearches: core respiratory conference abstracts

Conference

Years searched

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)

2001 onwards

American Thoracic Society (ATS)

2001 onwards

Asia Pacific Society of Respirology (APSR)

2004 onwards

British Thoracic Society Winter Meeting (BTS)

2000 onwards

Chest Meeting

2003 onwards

European Respiratory Society (ERS)

1992, 1994, 2000 onwards

International Primary Care Respiratory Group Congress (IPCRG)

2002 onwards

Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ)

1999 onwards

MEDLINE search strategy used to identify trials for the CAGR

COPD search

1. Lung Diseases, Obstructive/

2. exp Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/

3. emphysema$.mp.

4. (chronic$ adj3 bronchiti$).mp.

5. (obstruct$ adj3 (pulmonary or lung$ or airway$ or airflow$ or bronch$ or respirat$)).mp.

6. COPD.mp.

7. COAD.mp.

8. COBD.mp.

9. AECB.mp.

10. or/1‐9

Filter to identify RCTs

1. exp "clinical trial [publication type]"/

2. (randomised or randomised).ab,ti.

3. placebo.ab,ti.

4. dt.fs.

5. randomly.ab,ti.

6. trial.ab,ti.

7. groups.ab,ti.

8. or/1‐7

9. Animals/

10. Humans/

11. 9 not (9 and 10)

12. 8 not 11

The MEDLINE strategy and the RCT filter are adapted to identify trials in other electronic databases.

PRISMA flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.1 Health related quality of life (CCQ and SGRQ) up to six months.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.1 Health related quality of life (CCQ and SGRQ) up to six months.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.2 Health related quality of life (CCQ only) up to six months
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.2 Health related quality of life (CCQ only) up to six months

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.3 Daily step count up to four months.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.3 Daily step count up to four months.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.5 Daily step count sub group 2 (at 4 weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, outcome: 1.5 Daily step count sub group 2 (at 4 weeks).

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 1 Health‐related quality of life (CCQ and SGRQ) up to 6 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 1 Health‐related quality of life (CCQ and SGRQ) up to 6 months.

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 2 Health‐related quality of life (CCQ only) up to 6 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 2 Health‐related quality of life (CCQ only) up to 6 months.

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 3 Daily step count up to 4 months.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 3 Daily step count up to 4 months.

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 4 Daily step count (all time points).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support, Outcome 4 Daily step count (all time points).

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Smart technology compared with face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support for self‐managment in COPD

Smart technology compared with face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support for self‐management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Participant or population: adults with a clinical diagnosis of COPD
Setting: home or non‐healthcare residential setting (sheltered housing)
Intervention: smart technology
Comparison: face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

Number of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support

Risk with smart technology

Hospital admission

239 (1 RCT; Moy 2015 at 12 months)

⊕⊕ Lowa

Hospital admission not reported at 4 months. At 12 months. smart technology did not significantly impact the number of hospital admissions

Acute exacerbations requiring general practitioner (GP) visit and/or additional treatment

239 (1 RCT; Moy 2015 at 12 months)

⊕⊕ Lowa

Acute exacerbations were not reported at 4 months. At 12 months, smart technology did not significantly impact the number of acute exacerbations

Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL)
assessed with SGRQ and CCQ
Follow‐up: range 4 weeks to 6 months

Mean HRQoL ranged across control groups from 0.08 to 1.686

SMD in HRQoL in the intervention group was 0.22 lower (0.44 to 0.03 lower)

472 (3 RCTs)

⊕⊕ Lowa

Lower scores on both SGRQ and CCQ indicate better HRQoL. The SGRQ scale ranges from 0 to 100, and a change in score of 4 units is regarded as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). The SMD in the lower score indicates better HRQoL with smart technology

Daily step count
assessed with pedometer
Follow‐up: range 4 weeks to 4 months

Mean daily step count was 3200 to 4617 steps

Mean daily step count in the intervention group improved by 864 steps (369.66 to 1358.46 higher)

230 (2 RCTs; Moy 2015 at 4 months and Tabak 2013 at 4 weeks)

⊕⊕ Lowa

The follow‐up period differed between studies, from 4 weeks to 4 months. Smart technology significantly improved physical activity as seen in daily step counts

Self‐efficacy

0

This outcome was not measured in any of the included studies

Behaviour change: smoking cessation

284 (1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊕
Moderateb

Results showed no significant effect on smoking cessation

Functional capacity (6‐minute walking test or similar)

0

None of the included studies measured this outcome

Anxiety and depression

0

None of the included studies measured this outcome

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)

CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardised mean difference

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect but may be substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

aCI is wide owing to the small number of studies and the small sample sizes, which may impact precision of estimates

bCI is wide owing to the single study and the small sample size, which may impact precision of estimates

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Smart technology compared with face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support for self‐managment in COPD
Comparison 1. Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Health‐related quality of life (CCQ and SGRQ) up to 6 months Show forest plot

3

472

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.22 [‐0.40, ‐0.03]

2 Health‐related quality of life (CCQ only) up to 6 months Show forest plot

2

251

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.28 [‐0.44, ‐0.12]

3 Daily step count up to 4 months Show forest plot

2

230

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

864.06 [369.66, 1358.46]

4 Daily step count (all time points) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 Daily step count at 4 weeks

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 Daily step count at 4 months

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 Daily step count at 12 months (after 8‐month 'maintenance' phase)

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Smart technology versus face‐to‐face/digital and/or written support