Abstract
Introduction
Up to 25% of children and 5.6% of adults in the USA have atopic dermatitis (AD), with substantial impacts on quality of life. Effective control can be challenging despite therapy efforts. The emergence of information and communication technologies (ICT) in AD management prompted this study to assess its impact on self-management. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess outcomes from peer-reviewed clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of teledermatology, mobile health (mHealth) apps, and electronic devices for managing AD.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase for articles written in English and published until May 2023.
Results
Twelve trials with 2424 participants were selected from 811 studies. A meta-analysis of 1038 individuals reported a mean difference (MD) of −1.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): −2.24, −0.91] for the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). A meta-analysis of 495 individuals reported a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) MD of −0.59 [95% CI: −0.95, −0.23]. Despite heterogeneity (I2 = 47% and I2 = 74%), the impact was significant (P ≤ 0.001). SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) showed an insignificant MD of −0.12 (P = 0.91).
Conclusion
mHealth applications and telemonitoring show significant improvement in patients’ quality of life (DLQI) and self-management (POEM) but no significant impact on AD severity (SCORAD).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
This meta-analysis delves into the complexities and considerations that must be considered when integrating information and communication technologies (ICT) into clinical practice. |
Mobile health applications and telemonitoring show significant improvement in patients’ quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index, DLQI) and self-management (Patient Oriented Eczema Measure, POEM). |
Our results promote a more patient-centric and technologically integrated approach to care, with an emphasis on improving patient outcomes and managing atopic dermatitis effectively and efficiently while enhancing patient satisfaction and engagement. |
There are substantial benefits of these technologies in improving quality of life, fostering self-management, and potentially optimizing healthcare resources. |
Introduction
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is recognized as the most prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disorder, commanding the highest rank among all skin conditions as per disability-adjusted life-years metrics [1]. Recent epidemiological data reveal that AD afflicts approximately 25% of children and 5.4−5.6% of the adult population in the USA [2]. The clinical manifestations of AD extend beyond cutaneous symptoms. AD significantly impairs quality of life (QoL), and implies social and economic challenges for both patients and their families [3, 4].
The existing multifaceted treatment paradigm, though aligned with current guidelines, has met with limited success in managing AD. This is evidenced by a control rate of 75% after 16 weeks of treatment with dupilumab [5], and new molecules such as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, which block multiple proinflammatory cytokines involved in AD, have emerged as robust therapeutic options. With these advancements, the effectiveness of success rates has increased to 52% in long-term studies (52 weeks) of topical JAK inhibitors [6] and up to 62% efficacy in the oral form (12 weeks) [7], however the safety profile is still of concern in the literature [8]. Patients typically experience nine flare-ups annually, with a total of 136 days per year spent in AD flares [9]. These figures highlight the importance of achieving effective control, a critical factor for enhancing QoL, as elucidated in the International Study of Life with Atopic Eczema by patients with moderate to severe AD and their caregivers [10, 11].
A key aspect of AD management involves symptom alleviation, exacerbation prevention, and risk minimization through patient education, self-monitoring, and routine symptom assessment using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) [12, 13]. The emergence of information and communication technology (ICT) offers novel avenues for improving chronic skin disease management, including AD. ICT, encompassing electronic health (eHealth) technology such as telemonitoring, and mobile health (mHealth) intelligent devices (applications, smartphones, emails, chatbots, SMS, wearable devices, etc.), has the potential to facilitate self-management and treatment adherence and enhance communication between patients and healthcare providers [14, 15].
This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth (mobile health) apps, telemonitoring, and smart devices for managing dermatological conditions, with a focus on AD but inclusive of related conditions. By synthesizing existing evidence and providing a rigorous analysis, this research aims to contribute valuable insights to the ongoing discourse in this field. Such insights have the potential to inform both future scientific inquiry and practical clinical applications, offering a data-driven foundation for interventions aimed at enhancing the lives of those affected by AD and related conditions.
Methods
Search Strategy
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase until May 2023 for peer-reviewed clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of teledermatology, mobile apps, and electronic devices for managing atopic dermatitis. No language or date restrictions were applied during the searching process. The review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [16]. The study’s protocol was registered in PROSPERO (PROSPERO 2023: CRD42023421127).
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion: Reports on teledermatology, mobile apps, and electronic devices for AD for all age groups and settings and providing an assessment of the performance of the electronic tools on disease control were included. Studies were considered if they were in the English language and comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized controlled trials, and observational studies.
Exclusion: Studies were excluded if they were not AD-related, not related to mobile apps, not telemedicine, not electronic devices, or were reviews, nonhuman studies, guidelines.
PICO Framework:
P: Pediatric and adult patients with dermatological conditions including but not limited to atopic dermatitis.
I: mHealth Apps, Telemonitoring, and Smart Devices.
C: Standard care practices.
O: Enhanced Self-Management Outcomes for Dermatological Conditions (Improved Control; Patient-Reported Outcomes; Itch Intensity Reduction; Decreased Flare Frequency; Reduced Topical Medication Use; Enhanced Skin Barrier Function).
Data Extraction and Synthesis
The selection process for the included articles involved three independent reviewers (M.O., K.R., and A.O.) who proceeded in two phases. In the first phase, they assessed the titles and abstracts of the articles on the basis of predetermined eligibility criteria. In the second phase, they reviewed the full-text articles using the same criteria as in phase 1 and cross-checked all information obtained. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the reviewers. If any essential data were missing or unclear, the corresponding authors of the study were contacted to provide clarification.
Data Synthesis
The meta-analysis was conducted for controlled trials in Review Manager 5.4.3 (Cochrane, USA). The data were analyzed and are presented as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. In addition, the effect size was computed as standardized mean difference with 95% CI and are reported as Cohen’s d. Additionally, the χ2, I2, and Z values, in addition to the P value, are also presented as forest plots for the meta-analytical outcomes.
Risk of Bias Assessment
The risk of bias was evaluated at the study level based on characteristics such as study design, sample size, participants, exposure, and outcome measures. The assessment also included a risk of bias evaluation using the ROB2 by Cochrane.
Ethical Approval
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Results
Of the 811 studies identified, 252 duplicates were removed before screening. In total, 559 studies were screened using their titles and abstracts. Of these, 527 were excluded owing to the lack of relevance and meeting the exclusion criteria. Thirty-two studies were sought for retrieval and were assessed for full-text eligibility. Finally, 12 studies were included in the systematic review, and 8 were included in the meta-analysis. The PRISMA flowchart is depicted in Fig. 1.
Trial Characteristics
Of 811 studies, we included 12 trials, comprising 2424 pediatric/adult participants followed for 1–12 months. These individuals were intervened with mHealth applications/telemonitoring or standard care practices. The pooled median age for adults was 33.6 years with an interquartile range of 11.43 years, consolidating data from general adults, mothers, parents or carers, and other adult groups. For children, the overall median age was 3.75 years with an interquartile range (IQR) of 2.06 years. Additionally, Santer and colleagues’ (2014) age distributions indicate that, among carers, 32% are aged between 31–35 and 36–40 years each, while children’s age percentages peaked at 26% for 3-year-olds. The 12 studies included in the systematic review cover various interventions and methodologies aimed at understanding and treating various forms of eczema and other dermatological conditions [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. The characteristics are listed in Supplementary file (https://doi.org/10.17632/hyr49bdmxd.1).
Technological Functions, Study Objectives, and Outcome Measures
In the realm of digital healthcare for dermatological conditions, particularly eczema, several studies have utilized various technologies, durations, functions, and engagement methods to attain specific objectives and measure certain outcomes. The study-by-study information is presented in Supplementary file (https://doi.org/10.17632/hyr49bdmxd.1).
Patient Characteristics
The patient characteristics are listed in the Supplementary file (https://doi.org/10.17632/hyr49bdmxd.1).
Meta-analytical Findings
For the POEM assessment, the meta-analysis of 1038 participants demonstrated an MD of −1.57, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [−2.24, −0.91]. Heterogeneity was observed (χ2 = 9.35, degrees of freedom [df] = 5; I2 = 47%), and the overall effect was found to be significant (Z = 4.61, P < 0.00001). Cohen’s d value was −0.29, with a 95% CI of [−0.42, −0.17]. Heterogeneity for Cohen’s d was calculated as χ2 = 7.65, df = 5 (P = 0.18), I2 = 35%, and the test for overall effect resulted in Z = 4.68 (P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2).
Regarding the DLQI analysis, the meta-analysis included 495 participants, yielding an MD of −0.59 (95% CI: [−0.95, −0.23]). Heterogeneity was high (χ2 = 15.51, df = 4; I2 = 74%), and the overall effect was significant (Z = 3.24, P = 0.001). Cohen’s d value was −0.15, with a 95% CI of [−0.33, 0.03]. Heterogeneity was measured as χ2 = 24.12, df = 4 (P < 0.0001), I2 = 83%, and the test for overall effect revealed Z = 1.61 (P = 0.11) (Fig. 3).
The SCORAD analysis demonstrated a negligible MD of −0.12, with a 95% CI of [−2.08, 1.84] (P = 0.91). Cohen’s d was calculated as −0.03, with a 95% CI of [−0.30, 0.25]. Heterogeneity was minimal, with χ2 = 1.47, df = 2 (P = 0.48), I2 = 0%, and the test for overall effect resulted in Z = 0.12 (P = 0.91) for MD and Z = 0.19 (P = 0.85) for Cohen’s d (Fig. 4). These findings indicate varying degrees of effects across the different measures and highlight the complex relationships within the data. The datasheet utilized for the meta-analysis is attached in the Supplementary file (https://doi.org/10.17632/hyr49bdmxd.1).
Risk of Bias Synthesis
The studies by Weigandt (2023), Armstrong (2015), Santer (2014), and Os-Medendorp (2012) demonstrate a low risk of bias across all evaluated domains. This category accounts for 33.3% (4 out of 12) of the total studies, reflecting a strong methodological foundation. Studies by Ando (2022), Rijsbergen (2020), Kornmehl (2017), Annette Mollerup (2016), Bergmo (2008), Joergensen (2019), and Miriam Santer (2022) exhibited some concerns in one or more domains. These studies constitute 58.3% (7 out of 12) of the total and imply potential issues that might slightly affect the confidence in the results. Only the study by Gudmundsdottir (2022) was rated with a high risk of bias, reflecting significant concerns in some areas that might substantially affect the interpretation of the findings. This represents 8.3% (1 out of 12) of the included studies. The summary and traffic light plots are depicted in Fig. 5.
Discussion
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the effectiveness of telemonitoring and mobile applications was examined specifically for patients with AD. The data indicated a promising improvement in quality of life and self-management. The meta-analytical findings of this study encompass three distinct analyses that provide insight into the management of AD. In the POEM assessment involving 1038 participants, there was a significant overall improvement with an MD of −1.57 (P < 0.00001), with a moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 47%); Cohen’s d value of −0.29 further emphasizes the observed benefits. In the DLQI analysis of 495 participants, the study yielded an MD of −0.59 (P = 0.001) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 74%). Although a significant overall effect was found, the high variability necessitates careful interpretation. The SCORAD analysis, on the other hand, showed a negligible effect with an MD of −0.12 (P = 0.91) and minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), underscoring the complex relationships within the data. Collectively, these findings reveal varying degrees of effects across different measures. While significant improvements are evident in POEM and DLQI outcomes, pointing to effective interventions in some aspects of AD management, the negligible effect in SCORAD analysis calls for further exploration. The distinct levels of heterogeneity across the analyses also indicate the necessity for nuanced interpretation considering individual study contexts and patient populations.
The resurgence of interest in teledermatology has been further accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with forecasts suggesting continued growth due to evident patient and provider satisfaction [29]. In particular, telemonitoring emerged as an invaluable tool in enhancing access to specialized dermatology care, even for those in remote locations, a factor that simultaneously contributes to healthcare cost reduction [30]. As demonstrated by Giavina-Bianchi et al., telemedicine’s capacity to manage 72% of mild AD cases without in-person visits further underlines its potential to conserve resources, improve accessibility to specialized care, and significantly decrease wait times, a consideration especially pertinent in the context of public healthcare [31]. In a cohort study of 195 patients, Sieniawska and colleagues conducted online consultations and ascertained that nearly 50% of patients were discontented with its use, whereas one-third of them did not mind the use of telemedicine [32]. Overall, the authors reported lower life satisfaction, impaired QoL pertaining to mental health and overall health rating with AD during the COVID-19 pandemic [32]. The study emphasizes the usability of telemedicine applications during the pandemic and emphasizes the need for such interventions to improve anxiety and depression among patient groups [32].
This systematic review and meta-analysis highlights a broader acceptance and appreciation for digital technologies used to support healthcare, namely eHealth (electronic health) services, among both medical professionals and consumers [33]. With the integration of features such as medication reminders, symptom and trigger education, symptom tracking, patient education, and PROs, mobile applications have not only witnessed significant user engagement but also proven to be effective in enhancing symptom management and adherence to treatment among AD patients [19, 34]. These technological innovations have thus yielded tangible benefits, evident in improved clinical outcomes, as reflected in assessments such as POEM and DLQI.
Strengths
The strengths of our study include a comprehensive review utilizing a systematic approach that ensures an extensive overview of the existing literature related to the use of telemonitoring and mobile applications in AD management. By including studies with diverse methodologies, populations, and interventions, the study offers rich and multifaceted insights. The robust statistical analysis, coupled with meta-analytical techniques, provides more precise estimates of the effects and their statistical significance. Furthermore, the application of the ROB2 tool for assessing the risk of bias adds critical appraisal, allowing for an evaluation of the reliability and validity of the included studies.
Limitations
The study is not without limitations. The high heterogeneity observed in some analyses may impede definitive conclusions, reflecting inconsistency across studies. The potential for publication bias if negative or nonsignificant findings were underrepresented could also skew understanding. Limited generalizability may arise if the studies focus primarily on specific groups or locations. The quality of included studies, as some showed high or some concerns about the risk of bias, may impact overall confidence in the evidence. The lack of long-term outcome data could limit insights into the extended efficacy of telemonitoring and mobile applications in managing AD, and potential overlap in study populations might lead to duplication and distortion of effects. In sum, while this study’s comprehensive and methodologically rigorous approach offers valuable insights, these identified limitations must be considered in interpreting the findings and their implications for practice and policy.
Recommendations for Clinical Care
Healthcare providers should consider integrating telemonitoring and mobile applications into routine dermatology care for patients with AD, as this technology has been shown to improve the quality of life and self-management without negatively impacting severity. Telemedicine should be emphasized, particularly in remote areas, to ensure access to specialized care. Both providers and patients should be encouraged to engage with eHealth services, including mobile applications, to enhance symptom management and treatment adherence [35]. Integrated apps should include features such as medication reminders, symptom tracking, and personalized patient education. Continuous evaluation and collaboration with information technology (IT) specialists are essential to ensure up-to-date, user-friendly technology. Healthcare providers need adequate training in these technologies, and data should be used to create dynamic, real-time care plans. Attention must be paid to privacy, confidentiality, and adherence to relevant laws and regulations, with care tailored to individual preferences and technological literacy. Overall, these recommendations aim to leverage the benefits of telemonitoring and mobile applications to enhance patient outcomes and efficiencies within the healthcare system, contributing to more patient-centered care.
Conclusions
This systematic review and meta-analysis offers a robust evaluation of the integration of telemonitoring and mobile applications in the care of patients with AD, synthesizing evidence across diverse studies and methodologies. The findings highlight the substantial benefits of these technologies in improving quality of life, fostering self-management, and potentially optimizing healthcare resources. The success and enthusiasm shown toward telemonitoring and digital health interventions, especially against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, herald a transformative moment in dermatology care, extending the reach of specialized services to remote regions and amplifying patient engagement. Moreover, the nuanced insights derived from assessments such as POEM and DLQI demonstrate a complex interplay of factors contributing to better clinical outcomes. However, there are some concerns of bias in the studies analyzed and the variability in the results. Navigating these complexities requires a delicate balance of technology, medical expertise, patient preferences, legal considerations, and financial considerations. The strength of this review lies in its rigorous analysis, while its recommendations offer actionable, nuanced strategies tailored to diverse healthcare settings. The lessons drawn are applicable well beyond the confines of AD, serving as a beacon for the broader healthcare landscape, navigating toward a future where technology and human touch are harmoniously intertwined.
Data Availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article/as supplementary information files (https://doi.org/10.17632/hyr49bdmxd.1).
References
Shin YH, Hwang J, Kwon R, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of allergic disorders and their risk factors in 204 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Allergy. 2023;78:2232.
Silverberg JI, Barbarot S, Gadkari A, et al. Atopic dermatitis in the pediatric population: a cross-sectional, international epidemiologic study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021;126(4):417–28.
Wise SK, Damask C, Roland LT, et al. International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: allergic rhinitis–2023. In: International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology. Vol 13. Wiley Online Library; 2023. pp. 293–859.
Mahmoud O, Yosipovitch G, Attia E. Burden of disease and unmet needs in the diagnosis and management of atopic dermatitis in the arabic population of the middle east. J Clin Med. 2023;12(14):4675.
Napolitano M, Fabbrocini G, Neri I, et al. Dupilumab treatment in children aged 6–11 years with atopic dermatitis: a multicenter, real-life study. Paediatr Drugs. 2022;24(6):671–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-022-00531-0.
Nakagawa H, Nemoto O, Igarashi A, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of delgocitinib ointment, a topical Janus kinase inhibitor, in adult patients with atopic dermatitis. J Dermatol. 2020;47(2):114–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1346-8138.15173.
Iznardo H, Roé E, Serra-Baldrich E, Puig L. Efficacy and safety of JAK1 inhibitor abrocitinib in atopic dermatitis. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(2):385. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15020385.
Yoon S, Kim K, Shin K, et al. The safety of systemic Janus kinase inhibitors in atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2024;38(1):52–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.19426.
Abuabara K, Margolis DJ, Langan SM. The long-term course of atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(3):291–7.
Zuberbier T, Orlow SJ, Paller AS, et al. Patient perspectives on the management of atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118(1):226–32.
Capozza K, Funk M, Hering M, et al. Patients’ and caregivers’ experiences with atopic dermatitis-related burden, medical care, and treatments in 8 countries. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2023;11(1):264–73.
Silberman J, Sarlati S, Harris B, et al. A digital approach to asthma self-management in adults: protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2022;122: 106902.
Feldman SR. Practical ways to improve patients’ treatment outcomes-CORPORATE. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009.
Bukachi F, Pakenham-Walsh N. Information technology for health in developing countries. Chest. 2007;132(5):1624–30.
Aceto G, Persico V, Pescapé A. The role of Information and Communication Technologies in healthcare: taxonomies, perspectives, and challenges. J Netw Comput Appl. 2018;107:125–54.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003583.
Weigandt WA, Schardt Y, Bruch A, et al. Impact of an eHealth smartphone app on quality of life and clinical outcome of patients with hand and foot eczema: prospective randomized controlled intervention study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2023;11(1): e38506.
Ando T, Mori R, Takehara K, Asukata M, Ito S, Oka A. Effectiveness of pediatric teleconsultation to prevent skin conditions in infants and reduce parenting stress in mothers: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2022;5(1): e27615.
Gudmundsdóttir SL, Ballarini T, Ámundadóttir ML, et al. Clinical efficacy of a digital intervention for patients with atopic dermatitis: a prospective single-center study. Dermatol Ther. 2022;12(11):2601–11.
Santer M, Muller I, Becque T, et al. Eczema Care Online behavioural interventions to support self-care for children and young people: two independent, pragmatic, randomised controlled trials. bmj. 2022;379.
Rijsbergen M, Niemeyer-van der Kolk T, Rijneveld R, et al. Mobile e-diary application facilitates the monitoring of patient‐reported outcomes and a high treatment adherence for clinical trials in dermatology. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(3):633–639.
Joergensen KM, Vestergaard C, Joergensen MS, et al. Memory buttons in combination with mobile application-induced objective and subjective effects in patients with atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Res Pract. 2020;2020.
Kornmehl H, Singh S, Johnson MA, Armstrong AW. Direct-access online care for the management of atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial examining patient quality of life. Telemed e-Health. 2017;23(9):726–32.
Mollerup A, Harboe G, Johansen JD. User evaluation of patient counselling, combining nurse consultation and eHealth in hand eczema. Contact Dermat. 2016;74(4):205–16.
Armstrong AW, Johnson MA, Lin S, Maverakis E, Fazel N, Liu FT. Patient-centered, direct-access online care for management of atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(2):154–60.
Santer M, Muller I, Yardley L, et al. Supporting self-care for families of children with eczema with a web-based intervention plus health care professional support: pilot randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3): e70.
van Os-Medendorp H, Koffijberg H, Eland-de Kok PCM, et al. E-health in caring for patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized controlled cost-effectiveness study of internet-guided monitoring and online self-management training. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(5):1060–8.
Bergmo TS, Wangberg SC, Schopf TR, Solvoll T. Web-based consultations for parents of children with atopic dermatitis: results of a randomized controlled trial. Acta Paediatr. 2009;98(2):316–20.
Beer J, Hadeler E, Calume A, Gitlow H, Nouri K. Teledermatology: current indications and considerations for future use. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021;313:11–5.
Marasca C, Annunziata MC, Camela E, et al. Teledermatology and inflammatory skin conditions during COVID-19 era: new perspectives and applications. J Clin Med. 2022;11(6):1511.
Giavina-Bianchi M, Giavina-Bianchi P, Santos AP, Rizzo LV, Cordioli E. Accuracy and efficiency of telemedicine in atopic dermatitis. JAAD Int. 2020;1(2):175–81.
Sieniawska J, Lesiak A, Ciążyński K, Narbutt J, Ciążyńska M. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on atopic dermatitis patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1734.
Ariens LFM, Schussler-Raymakers FML, Frima C, et al. Barriers and facilitators to eHealth use in daily practice: perspectives of patients and professionals in dermatology. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(9): e300.
Gudmundsdóttir SL, Ballarini T, Ámundadóttir ML, et al. Engagement, retention, and acceptability in a digital health program for atopic dermatitis: prospective interventional study. JMIR Format Res. 2023;7(1): e41227.
Sánchez J, Ale IS, Angles MV, et al. Healthcare disparities in atopic dermatitis in Latin America: a narrative review. Dermatol Ther. 2023;13(2):399–416.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Universidad Espíritu Santo for their continuous support and invaluable contributions to our research endeavors.
Funding
No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article. The Rapid Service Fee was funded by the authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda, Zouina Sarfraz, Jorge Mario Sanchez Caraballo, María F. Osorio, and Azza Sarfraz. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Karla Robles-Velasco, Annia Cherrez, and Sofia Cherrez, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of Interest
The authors Ivan Cherrez-Ojeda, Karla Robles-Velasco, María F. Osorio, Ana Ormaza Vera, Zouina Sarfraz, Azza Sarfraz, Annia Cherrez, Sofia Cherrez, and Jorge Mario Sanchez Caraballo have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical Approval
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Cherrez-Ojeda, I., Robles-Velasco, K., Osorio, M.F. et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mobile Health Applications and Telemonitoring in Atopic Dermatitis Self-Management. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 14, 1787–1798 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01213-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01213-0