Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713491›Full record

Trial reportTelemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association2016

Cost-Utility Analysis of a Cardiac Telerehabilitation Program: The Teledialog Project.

Kristian Kidholm, Maja Kjær Rasmussen, Jan Jesper Andreasen, John Hansen, Gitte Nielsen, Helle Spindler, Birthe Dinesen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions to promote patient utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kristian Kidholm1 Center for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital , Odense, Denmark .
Maja Kjær Rasmussen1 Center for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital , Odense, Denmark .
Jan Jesper Andreasen2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital , Aalborg, Denmark .
John Hansen4 Laboratory for Cardio-Technology, Medical Informatics Group, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University , Aalborg, Denmark .
Gitte Nielsen5 Department of Cardiology, Vendsyssel Hospital , Hjoerring, Denmark .
Helle Spindler6 Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus Graduate School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University , Aarhus, Denmark .
Birthe Dinesen7 Telehealth and Telerehabilitation, Laboratory of Assistive Technologies, SMI ®, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University , Aalborg, Denmark .
Odense University Hospital · DKAalborg University · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKSlagelse Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality of patients with cardiovascular disease, but a frequently low participation rate in rehabilitation programs has been found globally. The objective of the Teledialog study was to assess the cost-utility (CU) of a cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) program. The aim of the intervention was to increase the patients' participation in the CTR program. At discharge, an individualized 3-month rehabilitation plan was formulated for each patient. At home, the patients measured their own blood pressure, pulse, weight, and steps taken for 3 months. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe analysis was carried out together with a randomized controlled trial with 151 patients during 2012-2014. Costs of the intervention were estimated with a health sector perspective following international guidelines for CU. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.

resultsThe rehabilitation activities were approximately the same in the two groups, but the number of contacts with the physiotherapist was higher among the intervention group. The mean total cost per patient was €1,700 higher in the intervention group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was higher in the intervention group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The incremental CU ratio was more than €400,000 per QALY gained.

conclusionsEven though the rehabilitation activities increased, the program does not appear to be cost-effective. The intervention itself was not costly (less than €500), and increasing the number of patients may show reduced costs of the devices and make the CTR more cost-effective. Telerehabilitation can increase participation, but the intervention, in its current form, does not appear to be cost-effective.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood PressureBody WeightCardiac RehabilitationCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulseQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRemote Sensing TechnologyTelerehabilitationcost-utilityeconomic evaluationheart patientsrandomized studytelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID26713491
PMCPMC4939376
OpenAlexW2206322260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.