NDLI: Clinical benefits and risks of remote patient monitoring: an overview and assessment of methodological rigour of systematic reviews for selected patient groups

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Wartenberg, Constanze Elden, Helen Frerichs, Malte Jivegård, Lennart L Magnusson, Kajsa Mourtzinis, Georgios Nyström, Ola Quitz, Kajsa Sjöland, Helen Svanberg, Therese Vallo Hult, Helena
Abstract	Background Remote patient monitoring implies continuous follow-up of health-related parameters of patients outside healthcare facilities. Patients share health-related data with their healthcare unit and obtain feedback (which may be automatically generated if data are within a predefined range). The goals of remote patient monitoring are improvements for patients and reduced healthcare costs. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of systematic reviews regarding remote patient monitoring for selected patient groups currently considered for the introduction of remote patient monitoring in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. The selected sixteen patient groups were: patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, children and adolescents with complex needs, children and adolescents with cystic fibrosis, children and adolescents with periodic fever, elderly patients with multiple diseases, patients with eye diseases, heart failure, haematological disease, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, neurorehabilitation, Parkinson’s disease, psoriasis, sleep apnea, and specialist maternity care. Outcomes considered in this overview were patient-relevant clinical benefits as well as risks. Methods A literature search for systematic reviews of clinical trials on remote patient monitoring in the selected patient groups was conducted by two information specialists, followed by assessment of relevance by a team of clinical and methodological experts in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. The methodological rigour of identified systematic reviews was assessed using QUICKSTAR – a tool for stepwise appraisal of systematic reviews. In a QUICKSTAR assessment, a level of at least five is considered a prerequisite for reliable conclusions regarding the question at issue. Results The literature search resulted in 4,049 hits, of which 84 SRs were considered relevant for the question at issue. A QUICKSTAR level of at least five was reached by 13 (15%) of the relevant systematic reviews. Some patient benefit of remote patient monitoring was reported for five patient groups (asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, heart failure, hypertension, and elderly patients with multiple diseases). For four patient groups (children with complex needs, children with cystic fibrosis, specialist maternity care, and sleep apnea), systematic reviews of adequate quality concluded that scientific evidence on clinical patient benefits of remote monitoring is very limited. For seven patient groups, no systematic reviews of sufficient quality were identified. Conclusion Clinical benefits and risks of remote patient monitoring as a replacement for, or in addition to, standard of care compared to standard of care (face-to-face visits) are poorly studied for most of the selected patient groups based on systematic reviews of acceptable quality. Patient-relevant clinical benefits are limited or impossible to evaluate for most diagnoses based on currently available scientific information. Possible clinical risks and costs are poorly studied.
Related Links	https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12913-025-12292-w.pdf
Ending Page	11
Page Count	11
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	14726963
DOI	10.1186/s12913-025-12292-w
Journal	BMC Health Services Research
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	25
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2025-01-23
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Public Health Health Administration Health Informatics Nursing Research Remote patient monitoring Remote home monitoring Telemonitoring Systematic review
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Health Policy

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Effectiveness of remote home monitoring for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): systematic review

The role of patient navigators in ambulatory care: overview of systematic reviews

Acute remote home monitoring of acutely ill patients with COVID-19: how Dutch home monitoring initiatives were organized during the pandemic

Economic evaluation of community-based falls prevention interventions for older populations: a systematic methodological overview of systematic reviews

Effects of intensive home visiting programs for older people with poor health status: A systematic review

The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Effects of Home Telemonitoring Interventions on Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Correction to: Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multimethod studies

Home care quality indicators based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC): a systematic review

Clinical benefits and risks of remote patient monitoring: an overview and assessment of methodological rigour of systematic reviews for selected patient groups

Similar Documents

Effectiveness of remote home monitoring for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): systematic review

The role of patient navigators in ambulatory care: overview of systematic reviews

Acute remote home monitoring of acutely ill patients with COVID-19: how Dutch home monitoring initiatives were organized during the pandemic

Economic evaluation of community-based falls prevention interventions for older populations: a systematic methodological overview of systematic reviews

Effects of intensive home visiting programs for older people with poor health status: A systematic review

The impact of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials

Effects of Home Telemonitoring Interventions on Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Correction to: Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multimethod studies

Home care quality indicators based on the Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC): a systematic review

Clinical benefits and risks of remote patient monitoring: an overview and assessment of methodological rigour of systematic reviews for selected patient groups