Cited by 41Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCardiac Health and Mental Health

Economic evaluation of the utilization of telemedicine for patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Farabi, Hiro, Rezapour, Aziz, Jahangiri, Reza, Jafari, Abdosaleh, Rashki Kemmak, Asma, Nikjoo, Shima·2020·Heart Failure Reviews

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease is one of the major causes of mortality in the world, with high human and financial burdens on communities. Telemedicine is a tool for providing services for patients that are difficult to access or in need of immediate care. The aim of this study was to systematically review economic evaluation studies that compared telemedicine with usual care for cardiovascular patients. A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and related articles published up to December 2018 were searched in different databases (PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Global Health, Google Scholar, Magiran, SID). The articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards statement checklist was used to qualitatively evaluate the papers. Overall, 20 articles were included in the study. The studies used quality-adjusted life years to measure outcomes. The highest and lowest values of Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio were $515,082 and $2099 that had been reported in the UK and New Zealand, respectively. Most of the items of the checklist were reported and the quality of most of the studies was excellent and very good. According to the results, telemedicine improves the clinical outcomes and results in considerable saving in costs. Utilizing telemedicine concurrent with the usual care for service delivery is more cost-effective. The reviewed studies had been conducted in high-income countries, hence, it is essential to be cautious when generalizing the results and applying them in health systems policymaking.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10741-019-09864-4

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farabi, H., Rezapour, A., Jahangiri, R., Jafari, A., Rashki Kemmak, A., & Nikjoo, S.
Affiliations
  • Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Rezapour, Aziz
Venue
Heart Failure Reviews
Published
2019-11-23
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
1063-1075
ISSN
  • 1382-4147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7322
OpenAlex
W2990515057
Cited by
41
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Heart Failure Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
telemedicine, cardiovascular disease, cost-effectiveness, usual care, quality-adjusted life years, health care costs, remote patient monitoring, health policy
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Global Health, Telemedicine, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

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