Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27756376›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2016

Telemedicine with clinical decision support for critical care: a systematic review.

Nicola Mackintosh, Marius Terblanche, Ritesh Maharaj, Andreas Xyrichis, Karen Franklin, Jamie Keddie, Emily Larkins, Anna Maslen, James Skinner, Samuel Newman and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 21st century critical care medicine: An overview.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Telemedicine in Intensive Care Units: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Article
  13. Review of Systematic Reviews in the Field of Telemedicine.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola MackintoshDivision of Women's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's Health Partners, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK. nicola.mackintosh@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0137-6432
Marius TerblancheGuy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ritesh MaharajKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Andreas XyrichisFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Karen FranklinGuy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jamie KeddieGuy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Emily LarkinsFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Anna MaslenFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
James SkinnerFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Samuel NewmanGuy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Joana Hiew De Sousa MagalhaesDivision of Women's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's Health Partners, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Jane SandallDivision of Women's Health, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Women's Health Academic Centre, King's Health Partners, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St Thomas' Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
King's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-PSSQRF-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTelemedicine applications aim to address variance in clinical outcomes and increase access to specialist expertise. Despite widespread implementation, there is little robust evidence about cost-effectiveness, clinical benefits, and impact on quality and safety of critical care telemedicine. The primary objective was to determine the impact of critical care telemedicine (with clinical decision support available 24/7) on intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and length of stay in adults and children. The secondary objectives included staff and patient experience, costs, protocol adherence, and adverse events.

methodsData sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library databases, Health Technology Assessment Database, Web of Science, OpenGrey, OpenDOAR, and the HMIC through to December 2015. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were eligible for inclusion. Eligible studies reported on differences between groups using the telemedicine intervention and standard care. Two review authors screened abstracts and assessed potentially eligible studies using Cochrane guidance.

resultsTwo controlled before-after studies met the inclusion criteria. Both were assessed as high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not possible as we were unable to disaggregate data between the two studies. One study used a non-randomised stepped-wedge design in seven ICUs. Hospital mortality was the primary outcome which showed a reduction from 13.6 % (CI, 11.9-15.4 %) to 11.8 % (CI, 10.9-12.8 %) during the intervention period with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95 % CI, 0.31-0.52; p = .005). The second study used a non-randomised, unblinded, pre-/post-assessment of telemedicine interventions in 56 adult ICUs. Hospital mortality (primary outcome) reduced from 11 to 10 % (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84; CI, 0.78-0.89; p = <.001).

conclusionsThis review highlights the poor methodological quality of most studies investigating critical care telemedicine. The results of the two included studies showed a reduction in hospital mortality in patients receiving the intervention. Further multi-site randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with accompanying process evaluations are urgently needed to determine effectiveness, implementation, and associated costs.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42014007406.

Indexed as

Critical CareDecision Support Systems, ClinicalTelemedicineControlled Before-After StudiesHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayClinical decision supportCritical carePatient safetySystematic reviewTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID27756376
PMCPMC5070369
OpenAlexW2533054615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.