Institute where work carried out is in Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK.
Insufficient evidence of benefit: a systematic review of home telemonitoring for COPD
Article first published online: 16 SEP 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume 17, Issue 6, pages 1216–1222, December 2011
How to Cite
Bolton, C. E., Waters, C. S., Peirce, S. and Elwyn, G. (2011), Insufficient evidence of benefit: a systematic review of home telemonitoring for COPD. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17: 1216–1222. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01536.x
Funding: EPSRC/MRC Grant Reference EP/F058640/1. C. B. is currently supported by NIHR Nottingham Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit.
Grand Challenge Team Members: Omnia Allam, Charlotte E Bolton, Edward C Conley, Glyn Elwyn, W. Alex Gray, Alex Hardisty, Tim Maughan, David Owens, Susan Peirce, Alun Preece, Omer Rana, Zaheer Yousef.
- Issue published online: 3 NOV 2011
- Article first published online: 16 SEP 2010
- Accepted for publication: 5 August 2010
- chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
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.