Background: Sensors and digital devices have revolutionized the measurement, collection, and storage of behavioral and physiological data, leading to the new term digital biomarkers. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the scope of clinical evidence covered by systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials involving digital biomarkers. Methods: This scoping review was organized using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. With the search limited to English publications, full-text SRs of digital biomarkers included randomized controlled trials that involved a human population and reported changes in participants’ health status. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched with time frames limited to 2019 and 2020. The World Health Organization’s classification systems for diseases (International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision), health interventions (International Classification of Health Interventions), and bodily functions (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ICF]) were used to classify populations, interventions, and outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 31 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of SRs studied patients with circulatory system diseases (19/31, 61%) and respiratory system diseases (9/31, 29%). Most of the prevalent interventions focused on physical activity behavior (16/31, 52%) and conversion of cardiac rhythm (4/31, 13%). Looking after one’s health (physical activity; 15/31, 48%), walking (12/31, 39%), heart rhythm functions (8/31, 26%), and mortality (7/31, 23%) were the most commonly reported outcomes. In total, 16 physiological and behavioral data groups were identified using the ICF tool, such as looking after one’s health (physical activity; 14/31, 45%), walking (11/31, 36%), heart rhythm (7/31, 23%), and weight maintenance functions (7/31, 23%). Various digital devices were also studied to collect these data in the included reviews, such as smart glasses, smartwatches, smart bracelets, smart shoes, and smart socks for measuring heart functions, gait pattern functions, and temperature. A substantial number (24/31, 77%) of digital biomarkers were used as interventions. Moreover, wearables (22/31, 71%) were the most common types of digital devices. Position sensors (21/31, 68%) and heart rate sensors and pulse rate sensors (12/31, 39%) were the most prevalent types of sensors used to acquire behavioral and physiological data in the SRs. Conclusions: In recent years, the clinical evidence concerning digital biomarkers has been systematically reviewed in a wide range of study populations, interventions, digital devices, and sensor technologies, with the dominance of physical activity and cardiac monitors. We used the World Health Organization’s ICF tool for classifying behavioral and physiological data, which seemed to be an applicable tool to categorize the broad scope of digital biomarkers identified in this review. To understand the clinical value of digital biomarkers, the strength and quality of the evidence on their health consequences need to be systematically evaluated.

Background We adapted the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) for Hungary and tested its psychometric properties on a large representative online sample of the general population. Methods The Hungarian version of eHEALS was developed using forward–backward translation. For the valuation study, 1000 respondents were recruited in early 2019 from a large online panel by a survey company. We tested internal consistency, test–retest reliability and construct and criterion validity using classical test theory, as well as item characteristics using an item-response theory (IRT) graded response model (GRM). Results 55% of respondents were female, and 22.1% were ≥ 65 years old. Mean eHEALS score was 29.2 (SD: 5.18). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.90), and test–retest reliability was moderate (intraclass correlation r = 0.64). We identified a single-factor structure by exploratory factor analysis, explaining 85% of test variance. Essential criteria for GRM analysis were met. Items 3 and 4 (search of health resources) were the least difficult, followed by items 5 and 8 (utilisation of health information), and then items 1 and 2 (awareness of health resources). Items 6 and 7 (appraisal of health resources) were most difficult. The measurement properties of eHEALS were not affected by gender, age, education or income levels. Female gender, older age, intensity of health information seeking, formal health education and visit at the electronic health-record website were associated with higher eHEALS scores, as well as best and worst self-perceived health states, BMI < 25 and participation at health screenings over the past year. Conclusions The Hungarian eHEALS is a useful and valid tool for measuring subjective eHealth literacy.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, contact tracing apps have received a lot of public attention. The ongoing debate highlights the challenges of the adoption of data-driven innovation. We reflect on how to ensure an appropriate level of protection of individual data and how to maximize public health benefits that can be derived from the collected data. Objective: The aim of the study was to analyze available COVID-19 contact tracing apps and verify to what extent public health interests and data privacy standards can be fulfilled simultaneously in the process of the adoption of digital health technologies. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and MEDLINE databases, as well as grey literature, was performed to identify available contact tracing apps. Two checklists were developed to evaluate (1) the apps’ compliance with data privacy standards and (2) their fulfillment of public health interests. Based on both checklists, a scorecard with a selected set of minimum requirements was created with the goal of estimating whether the balance between the objective of data privacy and public health interests can be achieved in order to ensure the broad adoption of digital technologies. Results: Overall, 21 contact tracing apps were reviewed. In total, 11 criteria were defined to assess the usefulness of each digital technology for public health interests. The most frequently installed features related to contact alerting and governmental accountability. The least frequently installed feature was the availability of a system of medical or organizational support. Only 1 app out of 21 (5%) provided a threshold for the population coverage needed for the digital solution to be effective. In total, 12 criteria were used to assess the compliance of contact tracing apps with data privacy regulations. Explicit user consent, voluntary use, and anonymization techniques were among the most frequently fulfilled criteria. The least often implemented criteria were provisions of information about personal data breaches and data gathered from children. The balance between standards of data protection and public health benefits was achieved best by the COVIDSafe app and worst by the Alipay Health Code app. Conclusions: Contact tracing apps with high levels of compliance with standards of data privacy tend to fulfill public health interests to a limited extent. Simultaneously, digital technologies with a lower level of data privacy protection allow for the collection of more data. Overall, this review shows that a consistent number of apps appear to comply with standards of data privacy, while their usefulness from a public health perspective can still be maximized.

Background: The demand for high-quality systematic literature reviews (SRs) for evidence-based medical decision-making is growing. SRs are costly and require the scarce resource of highly skilled reviewers. Automation technology has been proposed to save workload and expedite the SR workflow. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of SR automation studies indexed in PubMed, focusing on the applicability of these technologies in real world practice. Methods: In November 2022, we extracted, combined, and ran an integrated PubMed search for SRs on SR automation. Full-text English peer-reviewed articles were included if they reported studies on SR automation methods (SSAM), or automated SRs (ASR). Bibliographic analyses and knowledge-discovery studies were excluded. Record screening was performed by single reviewers, and the selection of full text papers was performed in duplicate. We summarized the publication details, automated review stages, automation goals, applied tools, data sources, methods, results, and Google Scholar citations of SR automation studies. Results: From 5321 records screened by title and abstract, we included 123 full text articles, of which 108 were SSAM and 15 ASR. Automation was applied for search (19/123, 15.4%), record screening (89/123, 72.4%), full-text selection (6/123, 4.9%), data extraction (13/123, 10.6%), risk of bias assessment (9/123, 7.3%), evidence synthesis (2/123, 1.6%), assessment of evidence quality (2/123, 1.6%), and reporting (2/123, 1.6%). Multiple SR stages were automated by 11 (8.9%) studies. The performance of automated record screening varied largely across SR topics. In published ASR, we found examples of automated search, record screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. In some ASRs, automation fully complemented manual reviews to increase sensitivity rather than to save workload. Reporting of automation details was often incomplete in ASRs. Conclusions: Automation techniques are being developed for all SR stages, but with limited real-world adoption. Most SR automation tools target single SR stages, with modest time savings for the entire SR process and varying sensitivity and specificity across studies. Therefore, the real-world benefits of SR automation remain uncertain. Standardizing the terminology, reporting, and metrics of study reports could enhance the adoption of SR automation techniques in real-world practice.