MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553852627 · doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfr039

Which Components of Heart Failure Programmes are Effective? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Structured Telephone Support or Telemonitoring as the Primary Component of Chronic Heart Failure Management in 8323 Patients: Abridged Cochrane Review

2011· review· en· W1553852627 on OpenAlexaff
Sally C. Inglis, Robyn Clark, Finlay A. McAlister, Simon Stewart, John G.F. Cleland

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureMeta-analysisComponent (thermodynamics)Management of heart failureIntensive care medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINECardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Telemonitoring (TM) and structured telephone support (STS) have the potential to deliver specialized management to more patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but their efficacy is still to be proven. The aim of this meta-analysis was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TM or STS for all-cause mortality and all-cause and CHF-related hospitalizations in patients with CHF, as a non-invasive remote model of a specialized disease-management intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched all relevant electronic databases and search engines, hand-searched bibliographies of relevant studies, systematic reviews, and meeting abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted all data. Randomized controlled trials comparing TM or STS to usual care in patients with CHF were included. Studies that included intensified management with additional home or clinic-visits were excluded. Primary outcomes (mortality and hospitalizations) were analysed; secondary outcomes (cost, length of stay, and quality of life) were tabulated. Thirty RCTs of STS and TM were identified (25 peer-reviewed publications (n= 8323) and five abstracts (n= 1482)). Of the 25 peer-reviewed studies, 11 evaluated TM (2710 participants), 16 evaluated STS (5613 participants) with two testing both STS and TM in separate intervention arms compared with usual care. Telemonitoring reduced all-cause mortality {risk ratio (RR) 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.81], P< 0.0001 }and STS showed a similar, but non-significant trend [RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.76-1.01), P= 0.08]. Both TM [RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.67-0.94), P= 0.008], and STS [RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68-0.87), P< 0.0001] reduced CHF-related hospitalizations. Both interventions improved quality of life, reduced costs, and were acceptable to patients. Improvements in prescribing, patient-knowledge and self-care, and functional class were observed. CONCLUSION: Telemonitoring and STS both appear effective interventions to improve outcomes in patients with CHF. Systematic Review Number: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008:Issue 3. Art. No.: CD007228. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007228.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.034
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations382
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207