CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Insufficient evidence of benefit: a systematic review of home telemonitoring for COPD: Home telemonitoring in COPD

Bolton, Charlotte E, Waters, Cerith S, Peirce, Susan, Elwyn, Glyn·2011·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01536.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The evidence to support the effectiveness of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is limited, yet there are many efforts made to implement these technologies across health care services. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was designed and implemented across 9 electronic databases and 11 European, Australasian and North American telemedicine websites. Included studies had to examine the effectiveness of telemonitoring interventions, clearly defined for the study purposes, for adult patients with COPD. Two researchers independently screened each study prior to inclusion. RESULTS: Two randomized trials and four other evaluations of telemonitoring were included. The studies are typically underpowered, had heterogeneous patient populations and had a lack of detailed intervention descriptions and of the care processes that accompanied telemonitoring. In addition, there were diverse outcome measures and no economic evaluations. The telemonitoring interventions in each study differed widely. Some had an educational element that could itself account for the differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite these caveats, the study reports are themselves positive about their results. However, given the risk of bias in the design and scale of the evaluations we conclude that the benefit of telemonitoring for COPD is not yet proven and that further work is required before wide-scale implementation be supported.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01536.x

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2001, Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness
  2. Higgins, 2009, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0. 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 140

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bolton, C. E., Waters, C. S., Peirce, S., & Elwyn, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Bolton, Charlotte E
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09-16
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
1216-1222
ISSN
1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01536.x
OpenAlex
W2164730201
Cited by
140
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1811 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
home health monitoring, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, telemedicine, risk of bias, underpowered trials, telehealth implementation, patient education
MeSH terms
Home Care Services, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

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