Home telemonitoring in heart failure patients and the effect of study design on outcome: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A wide range of study designs have been utilized in evaluations of home telemonitoring and these studies have produced conflicting outcomes over the years. While some of the research has shown that telemonitoring is beneficial in reducing all-cause mortality, hospital admission, length of stay in hospital and emergency room visits, other studies have not shown such benefits. This study, therefore, aims to examine several home telemonitoring study designs and the influence of study design on study outcomes. METHOD: Articles were obtained by searching PubMed database with the term heart failure combined with the following terms: telemonitoring, telehealth, home monitoring, and remote monitoring. Searches were limited to randomized controlled trial conducted between year January 1, 2000 and February 6, 2021. The characteristics of the study designs and study outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULT: Our review of 34 randomized controlled trials of heart failure telemonitoring did not show any significant influence of study design on reduction in number of hospitalizations and/or decrease in mortality. Studies that were done outside North America (USA and Canada) and studies that selected patients at high risk of re-hospitalization were more likely to result in decreased hospitalization and/or mortality, though this was not statistically significant. All the studies that met our inclusion criteria were from high-income countries and only one study enrolled patients at high risk of re-hospitalization. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more studies to understand why telemonitoring studies in Europe were more likely to reduce hospital admission and mortality compared to those in North America. There is also a need for more studies on the effect of telemonitoring in patients at high risk of hospital readmission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".