Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23793650›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Telemonitoring-based service redesign for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HITS): cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Andrew Stoddart, Janet Hanley, Sarah Wild, Claudia Pagliari, Mary Paterson, Steff Lewis, Aziz Sheikh, Ashma Krishan, Paul Padfield, Brian McKinstry

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02919033 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

A Coordinated PCP-Cardiologist Telemedicine Model (PCTM) in China's Community Hypertension Care: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorXu LeiRan2016 to 2018Enrolled330ConditionsHypertensionArmsUsual care, Self-management, PCTM intervention
NCT03891771 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Seniors Guardian: A Non-intrusive Monitoring Platform for Activities of Daily Living Amongst the Elderly

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad de ValparaisoRan2019 to 2021Enrolled69ConditionsQuality of LifeArmsTelemonitoring sensors
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andrew StoddartEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK.
Janet Hanley
Sarah Wild
Claudia Pagliari
Mary Paterson
Steff Lewis
Aziz Sheikh
Ashma Krishan
Paul Padfield
Brian McKinstry

Funding

Chief Scientist Office ARPG/07/03Medical Research Council G0800803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of managing patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) using telemonitoring versus usual care from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS).

designWithin trial post hoc economic evaluation of data from a pragmatic randomised controlled trial using an intention-to-treat approach.

setting20 socioeconomically diverse general practices in Lothian, Scotland.

participants401 primary care patients aged 29-95 with uncontrolled daytime ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) (≥135/85, but <210/135 mm Hg).

interventionParticipants were centrally randomised to 6 months of a telemonitoring service comprising of self-monitoring of BP transmitted to a secure website for review by the attending nurse/doctor and patient, with optional automated patient decision-support by text/email (n=200) or usual care (n-201). Randomisation was undertaken with minimisation for age, sex, family practice, use of three or more hypertension drugs and self-monitoring history.

main outcome measuresMean difference in total NHS costs between trial arms and blinded assessment of mean cost per 1 mm Hg systolic BP point reduced.

resultsHome telemonitoring of BP costs significantly more than usual care (mean difference per patient £115.32 (95% CI £83.49 to £146.63; p<0.001)). Increased costs were due to telemonitoring service costs, patient training and additional general practitioner and nurse consultations. The mean cost of systolic BP reduction was £25.56/mm Hg (95% CI £16.06 to £46.89) per patient.

conclusionsOver the 6-month trial period, supported telemonitoring was more effective at reducing BP than usual care but also more expensive. If clinical gains are maintained, these additional costs would be very likely to be compensated for by reductions in the cost of future cardiovascular events. Longer-term modelling of costs and outcomes is required to fully examine the cost-effectiveness implications.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72614272.

Indexed as

Health EconomicsHealth Services Administration & Management

Identifiers

PMID23793650
PMCPMC3657667

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.