Search

Introduction Sarcopenia is characterised by the progressive weakening of muscle function that occurs with age. This condition frequently leads to frailty, disability and even death. Research on sarcopenia prevention is growing. Digital health exercise interventions are increasingly gaining attention in this field, with the rapid advancement of the internet and the influence of the COVID-19. However, there is a lack of empirical support for their effectiveness. Our study aims to assess the effect of digital health exercise intervention on sarcopenia in older persons, specifically focusing on its ability to improve muscle strength, muscle mass and physical performance.Methods and analysis Searching will be performed in the following 11 databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, WOS, Scopus, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG and VIP) for published trials and 2 trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for unpublished trials. Google Scholar will be used to find grey literature. The criterion of inclusion will be clinical trials involving digital health exercise interventions in older adults (≥60 years) diagnosed with sarcopenia (possible, confirmed or severe sarcopenia). For data synthesis, we will use a summary table to show the major characteristics of selected trials and a summary graph to demonstrate the risk of bias for each outcome using RoB 2, which will be further discussed in a narrative synthesis. The possibility of meta-analysis for quantitative data will be assessed according to the homogeneity analysis of the trials, using the methods of fixed or random effects model. If meta-analysis is possible, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed as well. Publication bias will be assessed through the use of the funnel plot and Egger’s linear regression test when an adequate number of trials are available. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to classify the certainty of evidence body into four categories (high, moderate, low and very low).Ethics and dissemination The findings of the systematic review will be shared through publishing in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at appropriate conferences. Since we will not be using specific patient data, ethical approval is unnecessary.PROSPERO registration number CRD42024516930.

Objectives To provide an overview of the methodological considerations for conducting commercial smartphone health app reviews (mHealth reviews), with the aim of systematising the process and supporting high-quality evaluations of mHealth apps.Design Synthesis of our research team’s experiences of conducting and publishing various reviews of mHealth apps available on app stores and hand-searching the top medical informatics journals (eg, The Lancet Digital Health, npj Digital Medicine, Journal of Biomedical Informatics and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association) over the last five years (2018–2022) to identify other app reviews to contribute to the discussion of this method and supporting framework for developing a research (review) question and determining the eligibility criteria.Results We present seven steps to support rigour in conducting reviews of health apps available on the app market: (1) writing a research question or aims, (2) conducting scoping searches and developing the protocol, (3) determining the eligibility criteria using the TECH framework, (4) conducting the final search and screening of health apps, (5) data extraction, (6) quality, functionality and other assessments and (7) analysis and synthesis of findings. We introduce the novel TECH approach to developing review questions and the eligibility criteria, which considers the Target user, Evaluation focus, Connectedness and the Health domain. Patient and public involvement and engagement opportunities are acknowledged, including co-developing the protocol and undertaking quality or usability assessments.Conclusion Commercial mHealth app reviews can provide important insights into the health app market, including the availability of apps and their quality and functionality. We have outlined seven key steps for conducting rigorous health app reviews in addition to the TECH acronym, which can support researchers in writing research questions and determining the eligibility criteria. Future work will include a collaborative effort to develop reporting guidelines and a quality appraisal tool to ensure transparency and quality in systematic app reviews.

Introduction Early prevention of sarcopenia is a recommendation to reduce morbidity, mortality and improve quality of life. Several non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the risk of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older people have been proposed. Therefore, there is a need to identify the scope and differences of these interventions. This scoping review will summarise the nature and extent of the existing literature that describes and examines non-pharmacological interventions for community-dwelling older adults with possible sarcopenia or sarcopenia.Methods and analysis The seven-stage review methodology framework will be used. Searches will be conducted in the following databases: Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, All EBM Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG and VIP. Grey literature will also be identified from Google scholar. Search dates will be restricted to January 2010 to December 2022, in English and Chinese language only. Screening will be focused on published research, including both quantitative and qualitative study designs, and prospectively registered trials. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews will be followed when delineating the search decision process. Findings will be synthesised quantitatively and qualitatively as appropriate and classified using key conceptual categories. We will identify whether studies identified have been included in systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and research gaps and opportunities will be identified and summarised.Ethics and dissemination As this is a review, ethical approval will not be sought. The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and also disseminated in relevant disease support groups and conferences. The planned scoping review will help us identify the current status of research and gaps in the literature, so as to develop a future research agenda.