The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New technologies for chronic disease management and control: a systematic review
Abstract
We conducted a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of interventions using information and communication technologies (ICTs) for managing and controlling chronic diseases. Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that assessed the effectiveness of ICTs (except for those that included only telephone communication) and measured some clinical indicator. Information was reviewed and assessed independently by two researchers. Of the 950 clinical trials identified, 56 studies were identified for potential inclusion. Of those, 24 were finally included: 5 studies in asthma, 3 in hypertension, 1 in home telecare, 7 in diabetes, 6 in heart failure and 2 in prevention heart disease. Overall, ICT applications did not show an improvement in clinical outcomes, although no adverse effects were identified. However, ICTs used in the detection and follow up of cardiovascular diseases provided better clinical outcomes, mortality reduction and lower health services utilization. Systems used for improving education and social support were also shown to be effective. At present the evidence about the clinical benefits of ICTs for managing chronic disease is limited.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“In total, 19 reviews included both type 1 and 2 diabetes in their analyses, or included RCTs that did not differentiate [16,22,25,27,28,31,32,34-40,44,45,47,50,51].”
In the citing paper
“A total of 8 reviews were weighted 2 stars [22,27,28,31,37,40,44,50]; 4 of these included meta-analyses of impact on HbA1c, with 3 showing significant improvements over controls.”
In the citing paper
“A total of 8 reviews were weighted 2 stars [22,27,28,31,37,40,44,50]; 4 of these included meta-analyses of impact on HbA1c, with 3 showing significant improvements over controls.”
In the citing paper
“Narrative syntheses showed mixed results, with modest benefit in telehealth interventions both in place of and supplementing usual care [37], little evidence of benefit from telehealth interventions that excluded telephone support [28], and positive results for telehealth-delivered behavioral interventions (n=13 RCTs) [22].”
In the citing paper
“The use of telehealth, without telephone support, showed no impact on health care utilization in a 2-star weighted narrative synthesis of 6 RCTs [28].”
In the citing paper
“A total of 8 reviews assessed the impact on asthma control through symptom scores, quality of life, or unscheduled health care [20,24,27,28,36,61-63].”
In the citing paper
“A total of 9 reviews analyzed telehealth interventions for heart failure [16,20,28,55-60].”
In the citing paper
“Three 1-star reviews, all with narrative syntheses, concluded that further evaluation was needed before conclusions could be reached [28,36,61], while 1 other, focused on mobile interventions in developing countries, found evidence for improved symptom scores in a single RCT [20].”
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effectiveness of telemedicine: A systematic review of reviews
Ekeland, A. G., Bowes, A., & Flottorp, S. (2010) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.08.006 · Cited by 1,162
Hanlon, P., Daines, L., Campbell, C., McKinstry, B., Weller, D., & Pinnock, H. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6688 · Cited by 499
“The use of telehealth, without telephone support, showed no impact on health care utilization in a 2-star weighted narrative synthesis of 6 RCTs [28].”
InfluentialFaruque, L. I., Wiebe, N., Ehteshami-Afshar, A., Liu, Y., Dianati-Maleki, N., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Manns, B. J., & Tonelli, M. (2017) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.150885 · Cited by 281
Speyer, R., Denman, D., Wilkes-Gillan, S., Chen, Y., Bogaardt, H., Kim, J., Heckathorn, D., & Cordier, R. (2018) · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.2340/16501977-2297 · Cited by 219
Wildevuur, S. E., & Simonse, L. W. (2015) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3687 · Cited by 203
Metadata
- Authors
- García-Lizana, F., & Sarría-Santamera, A.
- Affiliations
- Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health 'Carlos III', Madrid, Spain
- Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Health 'Carlos III', Madrid, Spain; Department of Social Medicine, University of Alcalá Faculty of Medicine, Alcalá de Henares, Spain
- Venue
- Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-03-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 62-68
- ISSN
- 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1109
- OpenAlex
- W2157911237
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 13.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
- Keywords
- information and communication technologies, chronic disease management, telemedicine, asthma, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, telehomecare, health education, social support, clinical effectiveness, health care utilization, mortality reduction
- MeSH terms
- Chronic Disease, Communications Media, Computer Communication Networks, Humans, Patient Care Planning, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, 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
