ReviewGastro hep advances2026
Quality of Evidence in Remote Monitoring of Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Gastro hep advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Remote monitoring (RM) enables out-of-hospital surveillance and may benefit patients with liver cirrhosis. However, implementation in routine liver cirrhosis care is limited, most likely due to the lack of conclusive data on clinical effectiveness. This systematic review aims to analyze the quality of evidence regarding the effect of RM tools on disease outcomes for liver cirrhosis. Methods: This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review included studies of RM interventions per the World Health Organization's definition in patients with liver cirrhosis reporting at least 1 liver disease-related outcome. Retrospective or cross-sectional studies were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for other study types. RM development quality was evaluated against the V3+ framework. Results: One randomized controlled trial, 4 prospective cohorts with controls, and 7 prospective studies without controls were identified (n = 12; 636 patients; 17,680 studies screened). All studies with controls reported lower hospital readmissions in the RM groups. Interventions included smartphone applications, with or without additional measurement instruments, and automated calls. RM development quality varied substantially, with multiple RM interventions not reporting on verification (n = 6), usability (n = 4), or analytical validation (n = 5). The identified evidence informed the synthesis of a proposal framework to harmonize future RM research. Conclusion: Although studies show clinical benefits of RM tools in liver cirrhosis, evidence is limited by the (inherent) heterogeneity in interventions, design, and outcomes, and quality of the RM development process. This review emphasizes the need for consensus on RM monitoring frameworks and high-quality data to inform better clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.