ArticleOpen heart
From randomised controlled trial to real world implementation of a novel home-based heart failure tool: pooled and comparative analyses of two clinical controlled trials.
Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03655496 (Patient-centred Home-based Management of Heart Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Patient-centred Home-based Management of Heart Failure
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- mHealth Apps Using Behavior Change Techniques to Self-report Data: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic review of context-aware digital behavior change interventions to improve health.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Self-care Management Intervention in Heart Failure (SMART-HF): A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cardiac failure · 2022Trial
- Adherence to eHealth Interventions Among Patients With Heart Failure: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Exploring user experience: A qualitative analysis of the use of a physical activity support app for people with heart failure.PloS one · 2025Article
- Heart Failure Management through Telehealth: Expanding Care and Connecting Hearts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Usability and feasibility analysis of an mHealth-tool for supporting physical activity in people with heart failure.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- The AppCare-HF randomized clinical trial: a feasibility study of a novel self-care support mobile app for individuals with chronic heart failure.European heart journal. Digital health · 2023Article
- Virtual healthcare solutions in heart failure: a literature review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Implementation of Telemonitoring in Health Care: Facilitators and Barriers for Using eHealth for Older Adults with Chronic Conditions.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: A home-based tool for heart failure (HF) patients, was evaluated in a specialist setting as a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and also in a validation cohort in a primary care setting in a clinical controlled trial (CCT). The tool provides education, symptom monitoring and titration of diuretics. The aim of this study was thus to extend validity of the previous RCT findings in order to describe applicability of the tool in clinical practice. Methods: Data from both trials were analysed separately, as well as a pooled data set (n=172). Data were analysed with respect to HF related in-hospital days, self-care behaviour and system adherence, during a 6-month intervention. The analysis of in-hospital days for the pooled data was adjusted for baseline differences between the two study cohorts, relating to disease state. Results: In the RCT (n=72) the intervention group (IG) consisted of 32 patients and the control group (CG) of 40 patients. The risk ratio (RR) for in-hospital days was RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84, p<0.05 in favour of the IG. In the CCT (n=100) both the IG and the CG consisted of 50 patients and the IG had fewer in-hospitals days, comparable to the RCT findings with RR: 0.67; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99; p<0.05. For the pooled data set made up of 172 patients, the groups were well balanced but with a higher prevalence of hypertension in the CG. The RR relating to in-hospital days for the pooled data set was 0.71; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82; p<0.05 in favour of the IG. There was a statistically significant improvement in self-care by 27% and the median system adherence was 94%. Conclusions: These analyses suggest that the evaluated tool might reduce HF related in-hospital days in the general HF population, which adds to the external validity of previous findings.Clinical Trial Registration NCT03655496.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.