Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33653740›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2021

Does remote patient monitoring reduce acute care use? A systematic review.

Monica L Taylor, Emma E Thomas, Centaine L Snoswell, Anthony C Smith, Liam J Caffery

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 6 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Monica L TaylorCentre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5333-2955
Emma E ThomasCentre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8415-0521
Centaine L SnoswellCentre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4298-9369
Anthony C SmithCentre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7756-5136
Liam J CafferyCentre for Online Health, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia l.caffery@uq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1899-7534

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveChronic diseases are associated with increased unplanned acute hospital use. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) can detect disease exacerbations and facilitate proactive management, possibly reducing expensive acute hospital usage. Current evidence examining RPM and acute care use mainly involves heart failure and omits automated invasive monitoring. This study aimed to determine if RPM reduces acute hospital use.

methodsA systematic literature review of PubMed, Embase and CINAHL electronic databases was undertaken in July 2019 and updated in October 2020 for studies published from January 2015 to October 2020 reporting RPM and effect on hospitalisations, length of stay or emergency department presentations. All populations and disease conditions were included. Two independent reviewers screened articles. Quality analysis was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Findings were stratified by outcome variable. Subgroup analysis was undertaken on disease condition and RPM technology.

resultsFrom 2050 identified records, 91 studies were included. Studies were medium-to-high quality. RPM for all disease conditions was reported to reduce admissions, length of stay and emergency department presentations in 49% (n=44/90), 49% (n=23/47) and 41% (n=13/32) of studies reporting each measure, respectively. Remaining studies largely reported no change. Four studies reported RPM increased acute care use. RPM of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was more effective at reducing emergency presentation than RPM of other disease conditions. Similarly, invasive monitoring of cardiovascular disease was more effective at reducing hospital admissions versus other disease conditions and non-invasive monitoring.

conclusionRPM can reduce acute care use for patients with cardiovascular disease and COPD. However, effectiveness varies within and between populations. RPM's effect on other conditions is inconclusive due to limited studies. Further analysis is required to understand underlying mechanisms causing variation in RPM interventions. These findings should be considered alongside other benefits of RPM, including increased quality of life for patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020142523.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeChronic DiseaseHospitalizationHumansMonitoring, Physiologichealth services administration & managementinternational health servicestelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33653740
PMCPMC7929874

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.