MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985617564 · doi:10.1258/jtt.2009.090406

Home telemonitoring for congestive heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2009· review· en· W1985617564 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Polisena, Khai Tran, Karen Cimon, Brian Hutton, Sarah McGill, Krisan Palmer, Richard E. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTelehealthHeart failurePsychological interventionTelemedicineMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)Emergency medicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineHealth careMedical emergencyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a systematic review of the literature about home telemonitoring compared with usual care. An electronic literature search was conducted to identify studies of home telemonitoring use in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. Twenty-one original studies on home telemonitoring for patients with CHF were included (3082 patients). A random effects model was used to compute treatment efficacy to measure the average effect of the intervention across all studies where the quantitative pooling of results was appropriate. Home telemonitoring reduced mortality (risk ratio = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.85) compared with usual care. Several studies suggested that home telemonitoring also helped to lower the number of hospitalizations and the use of other health services. Patient quality of life and satisfaction with home telemonitoring were similar or better than with usual care. More studies of higher methodological quality are required to give more precise information about the potential clinical effectiveness of home telehealth interventions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations226
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207