Cited by 456Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Structured telephone support or non-invasive telemonitoring for patients with heart failure

Open access
Inglis, Sally C, Clark, Robyn A, Dierckx, Riet, Prieto-Merino, David, Cleland, John GF·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Specialised disease management programmes for heart failure aim to improve care, clinical outcomes and/or reduce healthcare utilisation. Since the last version of this review in 2010, several new trials of structured telephone support and non-invasive home telemonitoring have been published which have raised questions about their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of structured telephone support or non-invasive home telemonitoring compared to standard practice for people with heart failure, in order to quantify the effects of these interventions over and above usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology AsseFssment Database (HTA) on the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), AMED, Proquest Theses and Dissertations, IEEE Xplore and TROVE in January 2015. We handsearched bibliographies of relevant studies and systematic reviews and abstract conference proceedings. We applied no language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only peer-reviewed, published RCTs comparing structured telephone support or non-invasive home telemonitoring to usual care of people with chronic heart failure. The intervention or usual care could not include protocol-driven home visits or more intensive than usual (typically four to six weeks) clinic follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We present data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, all-cause and heart failure-related hospitalisations, which we analysed using a fixed-effect model. Other outcomes included length of stay, health-related quality of life, heart failure knowledge and self care, acceptability and cost; we described and tabulated these. We performed meta-regression to assess homogeneity (the null hypothesis) in each subgroup analysis and to see if the effect of the intervention varied according to some quantitative variable (such as year of publication or median age). MAIN RESULTS: We include 41 studies of either structured telephone support or non-invasive home telemonitoring for people with heart failure, of which 17 were new and 24 had been included in the previous Cochrane review. In the current review, 25 studies evaluated structured telephone support (eight new studies, plus one study previously included but classified as telemonitoring; total of 9332 participants), 18 evaluated telemonitoring (nine new studies; total of 3860 participants). Two of the included studies trialled both structured telephone support and telemonitoring compared to usual care, therefore 43 comparisons are evident.Non-invasive telemonitoring reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94; participants = 3740; studies = 17; I² = 24%, GRADE: moderate-quality evidence) and heart failure-related hospitalisations (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; participants = 2148; studies = 8; I² = 20%, GRADE: moderate-quality evidence). Structured telephone support reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; participants = 9222; studies = 22; I² = 0%, GRADE: moderate-quality evidence) and heart failure-related hospitalisations (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.93; participants = 7030; studies = 16; I² = 27%, GRADE: moderate-quality evidence).Neither structured telephone support nor telemonitoring demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the risk of all-cause hospitalisations (structured telephone support: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00; participants = 7216; studies = 16; I² = 47%, GRADE: very low-quality evidence; non-invasive telemonitoring: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; participants = 3332; studies = 13; I² = 71%, GRADE: very low-quality evidence).Seven structured telephone support studies reported length of stay, with one reporting a significant reduction in length of stay in hospital. Nine telemonitoring studies reported length of stay outcome, with one study reporting a significant reduction in the length of stay with the intervention. One telemonitoring study reported a large difference in the total number of hospitalisations for more than three days, but this was not an analysis of length of stay per hospitalisation. Nine of 11 structured telephone support studies and five of 11 telemonitoring studies reported significant improvements in health-related quality of life. Nine structured telephone support studies and six telemonitoring studies reported costs of the intervention or cost effectiveness. Three structured telephone support studies and one telemonitoring study reported a decrease in costs and two telemonitoring studies reported increases in cost, due both to the cost of the intervention and to increased medical management. Adherence was rated between 55.1%

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007228.pub3

Cites

542 of 542 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

17 of the 559 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. trial (the TEHAFstudy). Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2011;1:E389.
  2. Boyne JJ, Vrijhoef HJM, Spreeuwenberg M, Weerd GD, Kragten J, Gorgels APM. The effects of telemonitoring on heart failure patients' knowledge, self-care, self-efficacy and adherence: a randomized controlled trial [European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing]. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 2013; Vol. 13, issue 3:243-52.
  3. Boyne JJJ, Ramaekers B, De Wit R, Gorgels APM, Vrijhoef HJM. Adherence to medication and non-pharmacological recommendations in telemonitored heart failure patients. European Journal of Heart Failure, Supplement 2009;8:ii564.
  4. Boyne JJJ, Ramaekers B, De Wit R, Gorgels APM, Vrijhoef HJM. Patients telemonitoring for heart failure: adherence to medication and non-pharmacological recommendations. European Journal of Heart Failure 2010; Vol. 9:S30.
  5. C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F A U T H O R S Sally C Inglis: Responsible for conception and design of this study and the previous versions of this review (Clark 2007a; Inglis 2010). Responsible for co-ordinating and completing the review. Responsible for all data included in the review including designing, undertaking searches, retrieving search results, screening studies for inclusion, assessing risk of bias of studies, extracting data from papers, contacting study authors for information, entering data into Review Manager 5, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the review or revising it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. Performed previous work that was the foundation of this study.
  6. Robyn A Clark: Responsible for conception and design of this study and the previous version of this review (Clark 2007a; Inglis 2010). Responsible for conceiving the initial idea for Clark 2007a. Responsible for all data included in the review including designing, undertaking searches, screening studies for inclusion, assessing risk of bias of studies, extracting data from papers, entering data into Review Manager 5, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the review or revising it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. Performed previous work that was the foundation of this study. Riet Dierckx: Responsible for all data included in the review including undertaking handsearching of conference abstracts, retrieving search results, screening studies for inclusion, assessing risk of bias of studies, extracting data from papers, entering data into Review Manager 5, interpretation of data, drafting of the review or revising it critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published.
  7. David Prieto-Merino: Responsible for undertaking the heterogeneity tests between predefined subgroups and the meta-regression, review of statistical analyses undertaken in the review and drafting of sections of the review relevant to the heterogeneity analysis and meta-regression findings and approval of the version to be published.
  8. John GF Cleland: Consulted on design of review. Responsible for adjudicating study inclusion, interpretation of data (providing a methodological and clinical view), revising the review critically for important intellectual content and final approval of the version to be published. Guarantor for this review.
  9. D E C L A R A T I O N S O F I N T E R E S T Sally C Inglis: no disclosures Robyn A Clark was a PhD student involved in patient telemonitoring, data collection and tool development, analysis and publication of the CHAT Study which is included in this review (Krum 2013 (CHAT)). She was funded from NHMRC-funded grant for the CHAT study for one year then a Heart Foundation/NICS Scholarship.
  10. Cleland 2005 (Telemon) (TENS-HMS)) and other research related to telemonitoring. He has received honoraria from Philips for speaking on the subject of telemonitoring (this funding is not connected with this review). As this author was a lead investigator of an included study in this review (Cleland 2005 (Struct Tele) (TENS-HMS);
  11. Cleland 2005 (Telemon) (TENS-HMS)) he did not undertake any risk of bias assessment or GRADE assessment of studies included in this review. Performed previous work that was the foundation of this study Clark 2007a and Inglis 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Inglis, S. C., Clark, R. A., Dierckx, R., Prieto-Merino, D., & Cleland, J. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Onze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital (BE)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine; Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology; Keppel Street London UK WC1E 7HT
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-31
Volume
2015
Issue
10
Pages
CD007228-CD007228
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W3081832434
Cited by
453
References
559
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 13
FWCI
4.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10227)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
heart failure, home health monitoring, remote patient monitoring, disease management programs, hospitalization, mortality, health-related quality of life, self-care, acceptability, cost, health care utilization, usual care comparison, subgroup analysis, meta-regression
MeSH terms
Aged, Chronic Disease, Heart Failure, Hospitalization, Humans, Length of Stay, Quality of Life, Telemetry, Telephone, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review