MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895902509 · doi:10.2196/11496

Telemonitoring to Manage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Literature Review

2018· review· en· W2895902509 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clemens Scott Kruse, Brandon Pesek, Megan Anderson, Kacey Brennan, Hilary Comfort

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDMedicinePulmonary diseaseIntensive care medicineTelemedicineDiseaseCause of deathInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death throughout the world. Telemedicine has been utilized for many diseases and its prevalence is increasing in the United States. Telemonitoring of patients with COPD has the potential to help patients manage disease and predict exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of telemonitoring to manage COPD. Researchers want to determine how telemonitoring has been used to observe COPD and we are hoping this will lead to more research in telemonitoring of this disease. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Authors performed a systematic review of the PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases to obtain relevant articles. Articles were then accepted or rejected by group consensus. Each article was read and authors identified barriers and facilitators to effectiveness of telemonitoring of COPD. RESULTS: Results indicate that conflicting information exists for the effectiveness of telemonitoring of patients with COPD. Primarily, 13 out of 29 (45%) articles stated that patient outcomes were improved overall with telemonitoring, while 11 of 29 (38%) indicated no improvement. Authors identified the following facilitators: reduced need for in-person visits, better disease management, and bolstered patient-provider relationship. Important barriers included low-quality data, increased workload for providers, and cost. CONCLUSIONS: The high variability between the articles and the ways they provided telemonitoring services created conflicting results from the literature review. Future research should emphasize standardization of telemonitoring services and predictability of exacerbations.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 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

Citations83
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207