CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 115Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Versus Usual Care for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Yun, Ji Eun, Park, Jeong-Eun, Park, Hyun-Young, Lee, Hae-Young, Park, Dong-Ah·2018·Journal of Cardiac Failure
DOI 10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.09.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of telemonitoring (TM) in the management of patients with heart failure (HF).Methods and results We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials published through May 2016. Outcomes of interest included clinical effectiveness (mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department visits) and patient-reported outcomes. TM was defined as the transmission of individual biologic data, such as weight, blood pressure, and heart rate. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials (9582 patients) of TM met the inclusion criteria: 24 studies on all-cause mortality, 17 studies on all-cause hospitalization, 12 studies on HF-related hospitalization, and 5 studies on HF-related mortality. The risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.94) and HF-related mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.91) were significantly lower in the TM group than in the usual care group. TM showed a significant benefit when ≥3 biologic data are transmitted or when transmission occurred daily. TM also reduced mortality risk in studies that monitored patients' symptoms, medication adherence, or prescription changes.Conclusions TM intervention reduces the mortality risk in patients with HF, and intensive monitoring with more frequent transmissions of patient data increases its effectiveness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.09.006

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 115

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yun, J. E., Park, J.-E., Park, H.-Y., Lee, H.-Y., & Park, D.-A.
Affiliations
  • National Evidenc- based healthcare Collaborating Agency (KR)
  • Korea National Institute of Health (KR)
  • Seoul National University (KR)
Corresponding author
Park, Dong-Ah
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
19-28
ISSN
1071-9164 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cardfail.2017.09.006
OpenAlex
W2754484825
Cited by
115
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Cardiac Failure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency in Republic of Korea (NS15-001)
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
remote patient monitoring, heart failure, all-cause mortality, emergency department visits, patient-reported outcomes, medication adherence, usual care comparison
MeSH terms
Emergency Service, Hospital, Heart Failure, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine

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