Cargando…

Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Despite growing interest in remote patient monitoring, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims of its ability to improve outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of using wearable biosensors (e.g. activity trackers) for remote patient monit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Noah, Benjamin, Keller, Michelle S., Mosadeghi, Sasan, Stein, Libby, Johl, Sunny, Delshad, Sean, Tashjian, Vartan C., Lew, Daniel, Kwan, James T., Jusufagic, Alma, Spiegel, Brennan M. R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6550143/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31304346
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-017-0002-4
_version_ 1783424136820817920
author Noah, Benjamin
Keller, Michelle S.
Mosadeghi, Sasan
Stein, Libby
Johl, Sunny
Delshad, Sean
Tashjian, Vartan C.
Lew, Daniel
Kwan, James T.
Jusufagic, Alma
Spiegel, Brennan M. R.
author_facet Noah, Benjamin
Keller, Michelle S.
Mosadeghi, Sasan
Stein, Libby
Johl, Sunny
Delshad, Sean
Tashjian, Vartan C.
Lew, Daniel
Kwan, James T.
Jusufagic, Alma
Spiegel, Brennan M. R.
author_sort Noah, Benjamin
collection PubMed
description Despite growing interest in remote patient monitoring, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims of its ability to improve outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of using wearable biosensors (e.g. activity trackers) for remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes. We expanded upon prior reviews by assessing effectiveness across indications and presenting quantitative summary data. We searched for articles from January 2000 to October 2016 in PubMed, reviewed 4,348 titles, selected 777 for abstract review, and 64 for full text review. A total of 27 RCTs from 13 different countries focused on a range of clinical outcomes and were retained for final analysis; of these, we identified 16 high-quality studies. We estimated a difference-in-differences random effects meta-analysis on select outcomes. We weighted the studies by sample size and used 95% confidence intervals (CI) around point estimates. Difference-in-difference point estimation revealed no statistically significant impact of remote patient monitoring on any of six reported clinical outcomes, including body mass index (−0.73; 95% CI: −1.84, 0.38), weight (−1.29; −3.06, 0.48), waist circumference (−2.41; −5.16, 0.34), body fat percentage (0.11; −1.56, 1.34), systolic blood pressure (−2.62; −5.31, 0.06), and diastolic blood pressure (−0.99; −2.73, 0.74). Studies were highly heterogeneous in their design, device type, and outcomes. Interventions based on health behavior models and personalized coaching were most successful. We found substantial gaps in the evidence base that should be considered before implementation of remote patient monitoring in the clinical setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6550143
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65501432019-07-12 Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Noah, Benjamin Keller, Michelle S. Mosadeghi, Sasan Stein, Libby Johl, Sunny Delshad, Sean Tashjian, Vartan C. Lew, Daniel Kwan, James T. Jusufagic, Alma Spiegel, Brennan M. R. NPJ Digit Med Review Article Despite growing interest in remote patient monitoring, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims of its ability to improve outcomes. Our aim was to evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of using wearable biosensors (e.g. activity trackers) for remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes. We expanded upon prior reviews by assessing effectiveness across indications and presenting quantitative summary data. We searched for articles from January 2000 to October 2016 in PubMed, reviewed 4,348 titles, selected 777 for abstract review, and 64 for full text review. A total of 27 RCTs from 13 different countries focused on a range of clinical outcomes and were retained for final analysis; of these, we identified 16 high-quality studies. We estimated a difference-in-differences random effects meta-analysis on select outcomes. We weighted the studies by sample size and used 95% confidence intervals (CI) around point estimates. Difference-in-difference point estimation revealed no statistically significant impact of remote patient monitoring on any of six reported clinical outcomes, including body mass index (−0.73; 95% CI: −1.84, 0.38), weight (−1.29; −3.06, 0.48), waist circumference (−2.41; −5.16, 0.34), body fat percentage (0.11; −1.56, 1.34), systolic blood pressure (−2.62; −5.31, 0.06), and diastolic blood pressure (−0.99; −2.73, 0.74). Studies were highly heterogeneous in their design, device type, and outcomes. Interventions based on health behavior models and personalized coaching were most successful. We found substantial gaps in the evidence base that should be considered before implementation of remote patient monitoring in the clinical setting. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6550143/ /pubmed/31304346 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-017-0002-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review Article
Noah, Benjamin
Keller, Michelle S.
Mosadeghi, Sasan
Stein, Libby
Johl, Sunny
Delshad, Sean
Tashjian, Vartan C.
Lew, Daniel
Kwan, James T.
Jusufagic, Alma
Spiegel, Brennan M. R.
Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort impact of remote patient monitoring on clinical outcomes: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6550143/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31304346
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-017-0002-4
work_keys_str_mv AT noahbenjamin impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT kellermichelles impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT mosadeghisasan impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT steinlibby impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT johlsunny impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT delshadsean impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT tashjianvartanc impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT lewdaniel impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT kwanjamest impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT jusufagicalma impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT spiegelbrennanmr impactofremotepatientmonitoringonclinicaloutcomesanupdatedmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials