Using digital interventions to improve the cardiometabolic health of populations: Ameta-review of reporting quality

Objectives. We conducted a meta-review to determine the reporting quality of user-centered digital interventions for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic conditions. Materials and Methods. Using predetermined inclusion criteria, systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2015 were identified from 3 databases. To assess whether current evidence is sufficient to inform wider uptake and implementation of digital health programs, we assessed the quality of reporting of research findings using (1) endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, (2) a quality assessment framework (eg, Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool), and (3) 8 parameters of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth (CONSORT-eHEALTH) guidelines (developed in 2010). Results. Of the 33 systematic reviews covering social media, Web-based programs, mobile health programs, and compositemodalities, 6 reported using the recommended PRISMAguidelines. Seven did not report using a quality assessment framework. Applying the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines, reportingwas ofmild tomoderate strength. Discussion. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-review to provide a comprehensive analysis of the quality of reporting of research findings for a range of digital health interventions. Our findings suggest that the evidence base and quality of reporting in this rapidly developing field needs significant improvement in order to inform wider implementation and uptake. Conclusion. The inconsistent quality of reporting of digital health interventions for cardiometabolic outcomes may be a critical impediment to real-world implementation.