Search Results (1 to 10 of 2195 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 848 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 252 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 209 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 204 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 159 JMIR Formative Research
- 124 JMIR Research Protocols
- 71 JMIR Serious Games
- 53 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 34 JMIR Human Factors
- 32 JMIR Aging
- 31 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 28 JMIR Mental Health
- 27 JMIR Cancer
- 20 JMIR Medical Education
- 15 JMIR AI
- 15 JMIR Infodemiology
- 15 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 10 JMIR Dermatology
- 9 Iproceedings
- 9 JMIR Cardio
- 7 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 6 JMIR Diabetes
- 5 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 4 JMIR Nursing
- 4 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 2 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 2 JMIRx Med
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Digital Therapeutics in China: Comprehensive Review
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e70955
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Chen et al [21] reported a higher alert rate of 3.12% and a lower acceptance rate of 48.88% over 2 years, with only 28.08% of accepted alerts leading to actual prescription changes. This lower modification rate may reflect the broader definition of acceptance used in their study, which included mere acknowledgment of alerts, as well as the absence of embedded diagnostic recommendations that directly address diagnostic omissions.
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e70731
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Specifically, the sample size was calculated via the Hsu (with best) multiple comparison test by the Power Analysis and Sample Size 14, with α=.05, power=0.80, the MDs between different groups=6.139, and the common SD within a group was assumed to be 7.16, resulting in a total sample size of 138 (46 in each group). Accounting for a 10% dropout rate, the final sample size was planned to be 153 participants.
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e71741
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section