Digital Health Interventions for Chronic Wound Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Journal of medical Internet research 2024-07, Vol.26 (8), p.e47904
• Main Authors: Bai, Xinrui, Zhang, Hongyan, Jiao, Yanxia, Yuan, Chenlu, Ma, Yuxia, Han, Lin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Analysis; Care and treatment; Chronic Disease; Diabetic foot; Digital Health; Humans; Patient satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review; Telemedicine - statistics & numerical data; Wound Healing; Wounds and injuries; Wounds and Injuries - therapy
• ISSN: 1438-8871; 1439-4456; 1438-8871
• DOI: 10.2196/47904

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have shown promising results for the management of chronic wounds. However, its effectiveness compared to usual care and whether variability in the type of intervention affects wound outcomes are unclear. The main objective was to determine the effectiveness of DHIs on wound healing outcomes in adult patients with chronic wounds. The secondary objectives were to assess if there was any variation in wound healing outcomes across the various types of DHIs. In total, 9 databases were searched for the literature up to August 1, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and quasi-experimental studies comparing the efficacy of DHIs with controls in improving wound outcomes in adult patients with chronic wounds were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. We assessed the quality of each RCT, cohort study, and quasi-experimental study separately using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, ROBINS-I, and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools checklists. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were pooled using the random effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by the I statistic. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also performed. A total of 25 studies with 8125 patients were included in this systematic review, while only 20 studies with 6535 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Efficacy outcomes in RCTs showed no significant differences between the DHIs and control groups in terms of wound healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12; P=.67) and all-cause mortality around 1 year (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.55-2.12; P=.83). Compared with the control group, the use of DHIs was associated with significant changes in adverse events (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22-0.89; P=.02). Subgroup analysis suggested a positive effect of the digital platforms in improving wound healing (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.35-3.56; P=.002). Although meta-analysis was not possible in terms of wound size, cost analysis, patient satisfaction, and wound reporting rates, most studies still demonstrated that DHIs were not inferior to usual care in managing chronic wounds. The findings of our study demonstrate the viability of adopting DHIs to manage chronic wounds. However, more prominent, high-quality RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence, and more detailed clinical efficacy research is required. PROSPERO CRD42023392415; https://tinyurl.com/4ybz6bs9.