Efficacy of telemedicine for the management of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Telemedicine has been increasingly integrated into chronic disease management through remote patient monitoring and consultation, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for the management of patients with cardiovascular conditions. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from database inception to Jan 18, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials and observational or cohort studies that evaluated the effects of a telemedicine intervention on cardiovascular outcomes for people either at risk (primary prevention) of cardiovascular disease or with established (secondary prevention) cardiovascular disease, and, for the meta-analysis, we included studies that evaluated the effects of a telemedicine intervention on cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors. We excluded studies if there was no clear telemedicine intervention described or if cardiovascular or risk factor outcomes were not clearly reported in relation to the intervention. Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data from trials and observational and cohort studies using a standardised template. Our primary outcome was cardiovascular-related mortality. We evaluated study quality using Cochrane risk-of-bias and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. The systematic review and the meta-analysis protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021221010) and the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-20–2471–57236). Findings 72 studies, including 127 869 participants, met eligibility criteria, with 34 studies included in meta-analysis (n=13 269 with 6620 [50%] receiving telemedicine). Combined remote monitoring and consultation for patients with heart failure was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0·83 [95% CI 0·70 to 0·99]; p=0·036) and hospitalisation for a cardiovascular cause (0·71 [0·58 to 0·87]; p=0·0002), mostly in studies with short-term follow-up. There was no effect of telemedicine on all-cause hospitalisation (1·02 [0·94 to 1·10]; p=0·71) or mortality (0·90 [0·77 to 1·06]; p=0·23) in these groups, and no benefits were observed with remote consultation in isolation. Small reductions were observed for systolic blood pressure (mean difference –3·59 [95% CI –5·35 to –1·83] mm Hg; p<0·0001) by remote monitoring and consultation in secondary prevention populations. Small reductions were also observed in body-mass index (mean difference –0·38 [–0·66 to –0·11] kg/m 2 ; p=0·0064) by remote consultation in primary prevention settings. Interpretation Telemedicine including both remote disease monitoring and consultation might reduce short-term cardiovascular-related hospitalisation and mortality risk among patients with heart failure. Future research should evaluate the sustained effects of telemedicine interventions. Funding The British Heart Foundation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it