2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Versus Usual Care for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

10
102
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 112 publications
(113 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
10
102
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Other studies of telemonitoring in heart failure, using technologies other than mobile phones, have shown mixed results. Multiple meta-analyses have shown superior outcomes for telemonitoring in heart failure patients compared with standard care [ 44 - 46 ], although 2 large individual trials have been negative [ 47 , 48 ]. A recent meta-analysis included 37 RCTs with 9582 heart failure patients [ 46 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Other studies of telemonitoring in heart failure, using technologies other than mobile phones, have shown mixed results. Multiple meta-analyses have shown superior outcomes for telemonitoring in heart failure patients compared with standard care [ 44 - 46 ], although 2 large individual trials have been negative [ 47 , 48 ]. A recent meta-analysis included 37 RCTs with 9582 heart failure patients [ 46 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple meta-analyses have shown superior outcomes for telemonitoring in heart failure patients compared with standard care [ 44 - 46 ], although 2 large individual trials have been negative [ 47 , 48 ]. A recent meta-analysis included 37 RCTs with 9582 heart failure patients [ 46 ]. The authors identified a reduction in all-cause mortality for telemedical interventions compared with usual care (relative risk 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94; I 2 =0.16).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the “Risk of Bias” tool, which includes items on selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias . All data collection and quality assessment were performed by two independent investigators (XC and SQ), and kappa statistic was used to assess the agreement between investigators .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, despite patient acceptance [ 2 - 4 ], the diffusion of these services is lagging [ 5 ]. Meta-analyses tend to support claims of the positive impact on heart failure outcomes [ 1 , 6 - 9 ]; however, important inconsistencies in the evidence persist [ 10 ]. Inconsistencies are believed to result from the heterogeneity of the intervention and patient populations used in primary studies and the lack of consistency with which interventions are used (ie, fidelity) in clinical trials [ 10 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%