Cochrane · systematic review · CD013196
Telehealth interventions: remote monitoring and consultations for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Janjua, S, Carter, D, Threapleton, CJD, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
AirwaysAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
37
current version
GRADE rated
23
No studies
14
Included studies
NR
No studies 14 · 37.8%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 18 · 48.6%Low 3 · 8.1%Moderate 2 · 5.4%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Remote monitoring plus usual care compared to usual care
Population: people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Exacerbations Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of people experiencing 1 or more exacerbations Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | OR 1.25 [0.59, 2.67] | 1 study · 108 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
SGRQ total score Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 204 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
SGRQ total score Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 205 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Dyspnoea symptoms Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No evidence identified Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Time to first hospitalisation after starting intervention Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | HR 1.08 [0.8, 1.46] | 1 study · 256 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Time to first COPD‐related re‐admission Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | HR 0.42 [0.19, 0.93] | 1 study · 106 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Mortality Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mortality (all‐cause) Remote monitoring plus usual care vs usual care | OR 0.99 [0.62, 1.58] | 7 studies · 927 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Remote monitoring compared to usual care
Population: people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Exacerbations Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of people experiencing 1 or more exacerbations Remote monitoring vs usual care | OR 1.02 [0.67, 1.55] | 4 studies · 424 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Quality of life Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
SGRQ total score Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 45 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
CAT score Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 405 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
CAT total score Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 229 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Symptoms of dyspnoea Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
CRQ‐SAS dyspnoea symptoms score Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of people admitted to hospital Remote monitoring vs usual care | OR 1.21 [0.75, 1.94] | 2 studies · 357 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mortality Remote monitoring vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mortality (all‐cause) Remote monitoring vs usual care | OR 0.68 [0.37, 1.25] | 6 studies · 798 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) compared to usual care
Population: people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Exacerbations Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of people experiencing at least 1 exacerbation/moderate to severe exacerbation Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | OR 0.98 [0.74, 1.28] | 3 studies · 955 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Time to first exacerbation Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | HR 1.05 [0.67, 1.65] | 1 study · 166 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Quality of life Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
SGRQ total score Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 38 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
SGRQ total score Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
SGRQ total score Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 203 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
CAT score Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 521 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Dyspnoea symptoms Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
No evidence identified Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number of people who had at least 1 hospital admission Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | OR 0.81 [0.55, 1.18] | 2 studies · 447 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Number of people re‐admitted (all‐cause) Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | OR 0.5 [0.31, 0.81] | 3 studies · 344 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Mortality Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Mortality (all‐cause) overall analysis Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | OR 0.62 [0.39, 1.01] | 9 studies · 1886 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Adverse events: number of people with 1 or more (all‐cause) Multi‐component interventions (with telehealth as a component of care) vs usual care | OR 0.91 [0.62, 1.33] | 2 studies · 485 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |