CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTechnology Use by Older Adults

Interactive Remote Patient Monitoring Devices for Managing Chronic Health Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Leo, Donato Giuseppe, Buckley, Benjamin J R, Chowdhury, Mahin, Harrison, Stephanie L, Isanejad, Masoud, Lip, Gregory Y H, Wright, David J, Lane, Deirdre A +1 more·2022·Journal of Medical Internet Research
DOI 10.2196/35508PMC PMC9673001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Telemedicine is an expanding and feasible approach to improve medical care for patients with long-term conditions. However, there is a poor understanding of patients’ acceptability of this technology and their rate of uptake. Objective: The aim of this study was to systematically review the current evidence on telemonitoring in the management of patients with long-term conditions and evaluate the patients’ uptake and acceptability of this technology. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched from the date of inception to February 5, 2021, with no language restrictions. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported any of the following outcomes: intervention uptake and adherence; study retention; patient acceptability, satisfaction, and experience using the intervention; changes in physiological values; all-cause and cardiovascular-related hospitalization; all-cause and disease-specific mortality; patient-reported outcome measures; and quality of life. In total, 2 reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility. Results: A total of 96 studies were included, and 58 (60%) were pooled for the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in mortality (risk ratio=0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89; P=.003; I2=0%) and improvements in blood pressure (mean difference [MD]=−3.85 mm Hg, 95% CI −7.03 to −0.68; P=.02; I2=100%) and glycated hemoglobin (MD=−0.33, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.09; P=.008; I2=99%) but no significant improvements in quality of life (MD=1.45, 95% CI −0.10 to 3; P=.07; I2=80%) and an increased risk of hospitalization (risk ratio=1.02, 95% CI 0.85-1.23; P=.81; I2=79%) with telemonitoring compared with usual care. A total of 12% (12/96) of the studies reported adherence outcomes, and 9% (9/96) reported on satisfaction and acceptance outcomes; however, heterogeneity in the assessment methods meant that a meta-analysis could not be performed. Conclusions: Telemonitoring is a valid alternative to usual care, reducing mortality and improving self-management of the disease, with patients reporting good satisfaction and adherence. Further studies are required to address some potential concerns regarding higher hospitalization rates and a lack of positive impact on patients’ quality of life. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021236291; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=236291

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 96 studies found that interactive remote patient monitoring (telemonitoring) reduced 12-month all-cause mortality and improved blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin compared with usual care, but did not improve quality of life and showed no significant hospitalization difference. Patient adherence and satisfaction were generally favorable, though heterogeneous measurement prevented pooling.

Key findings

  • Among 96 included studies (58 pooled), telemonitoring reduced 12-month all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR]=0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89; P=.003; I²=0%) compared with usual care.
  • Telemonitoring improved systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD]=−3.85 mm Hg, 95% CI −7.03 to −0.68; P=.02; I²=100%) and glycated hemoglobin (MD=−0.33, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.09; P=.008; I²=99%).
  • No significant quality-of-life improvement was found (MD=1.45, 95% CI −0.10 to 3; P=.07; I²=80%), and hospitalization was not significantly different (RR=1.02, 95% CI 0.85-1.23; P=.81; I²=79%); the abstract describes the latter as an increased risk.
  • Adherence outcomes were reported in 12% (12/96) of studies and satisfaction in 9% (9/96); heterogeneity in assessment methods prevented meta-analysis, with 7/12 adherence studies and 5/9 satisfaction studies showing benefit of telemonitoring.

Methods

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236291) and reported per PRISMA; MEDLINE, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 5, 2021, with no language restrictions.
  • Eligible studies included adults aged ≥18 years with cardiovascular disease, COPD, or diabetes mellitus; interventions required a digital device for remote patient monitoring with two-way exchange of information between patient and health care team.
  • A total of 96 studies were included, and 58 (60%) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses in RevMan; risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB 2 for RCTs and ROBINS-I for nonrandomized studies, with narrative synthesis where data were too heterogeneous.

Limitations

  • Stated: no studies reported intervention uptake or study retention outcomes; adherence and satisfaction were assessed with different tools, making comparison difficult; possible omission of papers due to heterogeneous key terms; no gray literature search; mortality, adherence, and satisfaction were infrequently reported (17/96, 12/96, and 9/96, respectively); COPD was underrepresented; usual care varied across studies.
  • Evident from the text: several meta-analyses had very high heterogeneity (I²=100% for blood pressure, 99% for HbA1c, 79% for hospitalization), and most included RCTs (48/66, 73%) and non-RCTs (17/20, 85%) had some concerns or high risk of bias.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/35508

Cites

151 of 151 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 41 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Telemonitoring compared with usual care reduced mortality (risk ratio=0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89; P=.003; I2=0%).

    “Meta-analyses showed a reduction in mortality (risk ratio=0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89; P=.003; I2=0%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The included studies are sufficiently comparable in populations, interventions, and outcome definitions to justify pooling in meta-analyses.
  • Findingown data

    Telemonitoring compared with usual care improved blood pressure (mean difference [MD]=−3.85 mm Hg, 95% CI −7.03 to −0.68; P=.02; I2=100%).

    “improvements in blood pressure (mean difference [MD]=−3.85 mm Hg, 95% CI −7.03 to −0.68; P=.02; I2=100%)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The included studies are sufficiently comparable in populations, interventions, and outcome definitions to justify pooling in meta-analyses.
  • Findingown data

    Telemonitoring compared with usual care was associated with a risk ratio for hospitalization of 1.02 (95% CI 0.85-1.23; P=.81; I2=79%).

    “an increased risk of hospitalization (risk ratio=1.02, 95% CI 0.85-1.23; P=.81; I2=79%) with telemonitoring compared with usual care.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The included studies are sufficiently comparable in populations, interventions, and outcome definitions to justify pooling in meta-analyses.
  • Findingown data

    The included studies had a total sample of 26,167 participants.

    “with sample sizes ranging from 20 [36,99] to 3562 [102] participants and a total sample of 26,167 participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    9% (9/96) of the included studies reported satisfaction and acceptance outcomes.

    “9% (9/96) reported on satisfaction and acceptance outcomes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • May combine two claims. 21
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The review included 96 studies.

    “A total of 96 studies were included”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Adherence was assessed in 12 studies.

    “Adherence was assessed in 12 studies at different time points”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No studies reported uptake and retention outcomes, so these outcomes could not be reported in this review.

    “no studies reported uptake and retention outcomes and, therefore, these outcomes could not be reported in this review.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most outcomes analyzed in this review have been infrequently investigated in the literature: mortality was reported in 17/96 (18%) of included studies, adherence in 12/96 (12%), and satisfaction in 9/96 (9%).

    “most outcomes analyzed in this review have been infrequently investigated in the literature (eg, mortality was reported only in 17/96, 18% of the included studies; adherence was reported in only 12/96, 12% of the studies; and satisfaction was reported in only 9/96, 9% of the studies)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most included studies assessed similar outcomes but used different measurement tools, making comparison difficult, particularly for patient adherence and satisfaction.

    “Most of the included studies assessed similar outcomes but used different measurement tools, thus making comparison difficult, particularly in studies investigating patient adherence [13,30,36,42,48,51,58,59,66,84,92,103] and satisfaction [22,28,30,42-44,78,91,95] with the intervention.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some conditions such as COPD were underrepresented as few studies were available, so a separate meta-analysis for each condition could not be conducted.

    “some conditions (eg, COPD) were underrepresented as few studies investigating the effects of telemonitoring interventions on these populations were available; thus, we could not conduct a separate meta-analysis for each condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The type and quality of usual care varied throughout the included studies, which may have influenced the results in favor of or against telemonitoring.

    “The type and quality of usual care also varied throughout the included studies, which may have influenced the results in favor of or against telemonitoring.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Six authors independently assessed individual studies for risk of bias in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by discussion or referral to a third reviewer.

    “Six authors (DGL, MC, BB, SH, MI, and DL) independently assessed the individual studies for risk of bias in duplicate, and any discrepancies were resolved via discussion or referral to a third reviewer, as required.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Funnel plots and Egger tests were performed only where at least 10 studies were available.

    “Funnel plots and Egger tests were performed only where ≥10 studies were available [167].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [167] Higgins, JP, 2022, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.3

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers.

    “Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (DGL and MC).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Full texts of potentially relevant articles were independently assessed in duplicate.

    “The full texts of all potentially relevant articles were retrieved and independently assessed by the reviewers in duplicate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Overall, most RCTs (48/66, 73%) and non-RCTs (17/20, 85%) included in this review showed either some concerns or a high risk of bias.

    “Overall, most RCTs (48/66, 73%) and non-RCTs (17/20, 85%) included in this review showed either some concerns or a high risk of bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    50% (10/20) of non-RCTs showed either some concerns or a high risk of bias in the bias in measurement of outcomes category.

    “A total of 50% (10/20) of the studies showed either some concerns or a high risk of bias in the bias in measurement of outcomes category.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236291).

    “This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42021236291)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Patients report good satisfaction and adherence with telemonitoring.

    “with patients reporting good satisfaction and adherence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The risk of bias present in most included studies does not materially alter the pooled effect estimates.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

    “conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [12].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent evidence has deemed telemedicine feasible for patients with long-term conditions and effective in improving medical care.

    “Recent evidence has deemed telemedicine feasible for patients with long-term conditions and effective in terms of improving medical care [10].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility.

    “In total, 2 reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts.

    “Two reviewers (MC and DGL) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the studies retrieved from the databases against the search criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Egger test results revealed no evidence of publication bias for systolic blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, or mortality.

    “The Egger test results revealed no evidence of publication bias for SBP, HbA1c, or mortality.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    For RCTs, the Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 tool was used; for nonrandomized studies, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions was used.

    “For RCTs, the Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 tool [164] was used. For nonrandomized studies, the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions [165] was used.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [164] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [165] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Despite inclusion of studies with low methodological quality, sensitivity analyses were conducted where appropriate, reducing the potential for bias to affect the results of this review.

    “Despite the inclusion of studies with low methodological quality, sensitivity analyses were conducted where appropriate, reducing the potential for bias to affect the results of this review.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Telemonitoring interventions are associated with good patient adherence and satisfaction.

    “Our results suggest that telemonitoring interventions are associated with good patient adherence and satisfaction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Other reviews have shown similar improvements in hypertension and type 2 diabetes self-management after telemonitoring interventions.

    “This is in line with other reviews that have shown similar improvements in hypertension [168] and type 2 diabetes self-management [169] after telemonitoring interventions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [168] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [169] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The results of this review are in line with previous systematic reviews assessing patient satisfaction with telemonitoring interventions.

    “The results of this review are in line with those of previous systematic reviews assessing patient satisfaction with telemonitoring interventions [174,175].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [174] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [175] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    This review used a strict definition of telemonitoring, only including studies that used a device to collect health measures and facilitated 2-way communication or action between the patient and health care team.

    “This review used a strict definition of telemonitoring, only including studies that used a device to collect health measures and facilitated 2-way communication or action between the patient and health care team.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    These findings confirm previous reviews while expanding the results to populations outside care homes and including study designs other than RCTs.

    “Our findings confirm previous reviews [177,178] while expanding the results to populations outside care homes [178] and including study designs other than RCTs [177].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [177] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [178] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Previous literature is inconsistent on the role of telemonitoring in reducing rehospitalization, with some studies reporting no differences and others concluding it reduces all-cause hospitalization in adults with heart failure.

    “There is inconsistency in the previous literature on the role that telemonitoring plays in reducing the risk of rehospitalization, with some studies reporting no differences compared with usual care [171] and others concluding that telemonitoring is an effective tool to reduce all-cause hospitalization in adults with heart failure [172].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [171] Kalankesh, LR, 2016, Perspect Health Inf Manag

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [172] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Thurmond et al noted the importance of the type of telemonitoring intervention on its acceptability by patients and consequently their adherence, which when poor may influence the rate of rehospitalization.

    “Thurmond et al [173] noted the importance that the type of telemonitoring intervention has on its acceptability by patients and, consequently, their adherence to it, which, when poor, may influence the rate of rehospitalization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [173] Thurmond, VA, 2002, Online J Knowl Synth Nurs

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The studies included in this review presented a wide range of telemonitoring interventions and populations, making the results highly generalizable.

    “The studies included in this review presented a wide range of telemonitoring interventions that differed in the personnel involved, administration of the intervention, and technology used and that were examined in a variety of populations with different long-term conditions, thus making the results highly generalizable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Patient satisfaction may differ with the type of telemonitoring device used; available evidence suggests higher patient satisfaction is reported for videoconferences and devices that allow automated data transmission.

    “It is important to note that patient satisfaction may differ with the type of telemonitoring device used; indeed, available evidence suggests that higher patient satisfaction is reported for videoconferences and devices that allow for automated data transmission [174].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [174] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Patient satisfaction and adherence to telemonitoring appear, overall, to be promising.

    “Patient satisfaction and adherence to telemonitoring appear, overall, to be promising.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Telemonitoring is a promising tool to manage long-term conditions, with the potential to reduce associated costs and alleviate patient difficulties in accessing primary health care.

    “Telemonitoring is a promising tool to manage long-term conditions, with the potential to reduce the associated costs and alleviate patient difficulties in accessing primary health care.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    A robust methodology was used, with independent screening and data extraction by 2 reviewers and risk of bias assessment in duplicate.

    “A robust methodology was used, with independent screening and data extraction by 2 reviewers and risk of bias assessment in duplicate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies are sufficiently comparable in populations, interventions, and outcome definitions to justify pooling in meta-analyses.

    “Meta-analyses were conducted on comparable studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The risk of bias present in most included studies does not materially alter the pooled effect estimates.

    “Overall, most RCTs (48/66, 73%) and non-RCTs (17/20, 85%) included in this review showed either some concerns or a high risk of bias.”
2 of 2

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?

  • Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that RPM-HTN can be effective and cost-effective in managing hypertension, enhancing BP control, and mitigating cardiovascular disease events.

    “Several randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that RPM-HTN can be effective and cost-effective in managing hypertension, enhancing BP control, and mitigating cardiovascular disease events.7–12”

    From Program cost and return on investment analysis of remote patient monitoring for hypertension management in the cardiology department of a large healthcare system (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results (Secondary Outcomes; page not provided) report significantly lower systolic BP with telemonitoring than with usual care, supporting the BP-control portion of the claim. The passages do not establish cost-effectiveness or a reduction in cardiovascular disease events specifically among patients with hypertension; the reported hospitalization analysis found no significant difference. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Patient satisfaction was assessed in nine studies, with five concluding that patient satisfaction was improved by telemonitoring.

    “Patient satisfaction was also assessed in nine studies, with five concluding that patient satisfaction was improved by telemonitoring.”

    From Use of telemonitoring in patient self-management of chronic disease: a qualitative meta-synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

  • When compared to usual care, patient adherence was improved in telemonitoring groups in six of twelve studies assessed.

    “When compared to usual care, patient adherence was improved in telemonitoring groups in six of twelve studies assessed.”

    From Use of telemonitoring in patient self-management of chronic disease: a qualitative meta-synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • QoL narrative categories total more than 13 studies

    Minor

    The narrative describes 4 studies favoring telemonitoring, 9 finding no difference, and 1 favoring usual care. Those counts total 14 rather than the stated 13 studies not included in the meta-analysis.

    Reported 13 · recomputed 14

  • Intervention-duration counts exceed the number of studies

    Minor

    The three stated duration groups contain 5, 20, and 76 studies, totaling 101, although each fraction uses 96 as the total number of studies.

    Reported 96 · recomputed 101

  • Donate-Martinez women's percentage is incorrect

    Minor

    Table 2 lists 25 women among 74 participants as 44%; the proportion is approximately 33.8%.

    Reported 44 · recomputed 33.783784

  • Kotooka intervention sex counts do not total 93

    Minor

    The intervention group is stated to have 93 participants, but its listed counts of 51 men and 39 women total 90.

    Reported 93 · recomputed 90

  • Kardas usual-care women's percentage is incorrect

    Minor

    Table 1 lists 11 women among 30 usual-care participants as 47%; the proportion is approximately 36.7%.

    Reported 47 · recomputed 36.666667

  • Bergenstal is classified both as a satisfaction benefit and as no difference

    Minor

    The satisfaction narrative counts study [22] among studies demonstrating a benefit, while Table 2 marks its impact as "=," defined in the table note as no difference.

6 of 6

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Trudel, M, 2007, Stud Health Technol Inform, 129, 167
  2. Wade, MJ, 2011, Am J Manag Care, 17, e71
  3. Biermann, E, 2000, Stud Health Technol Inform, 77, 327
  4. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.320142021-10-01Copenhagen, DenmarkThe Cochrane Collaborationhttps://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software/revman/revman-5-download
  5. Higgins, JP, 2022, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.3
  6. Kalankesh, LR, 2016, Perspect Health Inf Manag, 13, 1h
  7. Thurmond, VA, 2002, Online J Knowl Synth Nurs, 9, 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leo, D. G., Buckley, B. J. R., Chowdhury, M., Harrison, S. L., Isanejad, M., Lip, G. Y. H., Wright, D. J., Lane, D. A., & the TAILOR investigators
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Lane, Deirdre A
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2022-11-03
Volume
24
Issue
11
Pages
e35508
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/35508
PMC
PMC9673001
OpenAlex
W4225774496
Cited by
62
References
151
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
remote patient monitoring, telemedicine, chronic disease, patient acceptability, technology adoption, mortality, hospitalization, blood pressure, HbA1c, patient satisfaction, quality of life, self-management, adherence, patient retention, patient-reported outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, usual care comparison, digital health interventions, patient-centered outcomes research, health technology assessment, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Hospitalization, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Quality of Life, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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