RESUMO
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.501104.].
RESUMO
Background: The objective of this analysis was to systematically review studies employing wearable technology in patients with dementia by quantifying differences in digitally captured physiological endpoints. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was based on web searches of Cochrane Database, PsycInfo, Pubmed, Embase, and IEEE between October 25-31st, 2017. Observational studies providing physiological data measured by wearable technology on participants with dementia with a mean age ≥50. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines and methodological quality assessed independently using Downs and Black criteria. Standardized mean differences between cases and controls were estimated using random-effects models. Results: Forty-eight studies from 18,456 screened abstracts (Dementia: n = 2,516, Control: n = 1,224) met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Nineteen of these studies were included in one or multiple meta-analyses (Dementia: n = 617, Control: n = 406). Participants with dementia demonstrated lower levels of daily activity (standardized mean difference (SMD), -1.60; 95% CI, -2.66 to -0.55), decreased sleep efficiency (SMD, -0.52; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.16), and greater intradaily circadian variability (SMD, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.65) than controls, among other measures. Statistical between-study heterogeneity was observed, possibly due to variation in testing duration, device type or patient setting. Conclusions and Relevance: Digitally captured data using wearable devices revealed that adults with dementia were less active, demonstrated increased fragmentation of their sleep-wake cycle and a loss of typical diurnal variation in circadian rhythm as compared to controls.
RESUMO
Authors use in-text citations to provide support for their claims and to acknowledge work done by others. How much do such citations increase the believability of an author's claims? It is possible that readers (especially novices) might ignore citations as they read. Alternatively, citations ostensibly serve as evidence for a claim, which justifies using them as a basis for a judgment of truth. In six experiments, subjects saw true and false trivia claims of varying difficulty presented with and without in-text citations (e.g., The cat is the only pet not mentioned in the bible) and rated the likelihood that each statement was true. A mini meta-analysis summarizing the results of all six experiments indicated that citations had a small but reliable effect on judgments of truth (d=0.13, 95% CI [0.06, 0.20]) suggesting that subjects were more likely to believe claims that were presented with citations than without. We discuss this citation effect and how it is similar and different to related research suggesting that nonprobative photos can increase judgments of truth.
