Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33420338›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2021

Clinical outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems in remote monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fahad M Iqbal, Kyle Lam, Meera Joshi, Sadia Khan, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Reintegrating the Human in Health: A Triadic Blueprint for Whole-Person Care in the Age of AI.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Patient-reported symptom monitoring: using (big) data to improve supportive care at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

6 authors.

Fahad M IqbalDivision of Surgery, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK. fahad.iqbal@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0834-1275
Kyle LamDivision of Surgery, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-4912
Meera JoshiDivision of Surgery, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Sadia KhanDivision of Cardiology, West Middlesex University Hospital, London, TW7 6AF, UK.
Hutan AshrafianDivision of Surgery, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1668-0672
Ara DarziDivision of Surgery, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, London, W2 1NY, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-7989

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in digital technologies have allowed remote monitoring and digital alerting systems to gain popularity. Despite this, limited evidence exists to substantiate claims that digital alerting can improve clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to appraise the evidence on the clinical outcomes of digital alerting systems in remote monitoring through a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic literature search, with no language restrictions, was performed to identify studies evaluating healthcare outcomes of digital sensor alerting systems used in remote monitoring across all (medical and surgical) cohorts. The primary outcome was hospitalisation; secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, emergency department and outpatient visits. Standard, pooled hazard ratio and proportion of means meta-analyses were performed. A total of 33 studies met the eligibility criteria; of which, 23 allowed for a meta-analysis. A 9.6% mean decrease in hospitalisation favouring digital alerting systems from a pooled random effects analysis was noted. However, pooled weighted mean differences and hazard ratios did not reproduce this finding. Digital alerting reduced hospital LOS by a mean difference of 1.043 days. A 3% mean decrease in all-cause mortality from digital alerting systems was noted. There was no benefit of digital alerting with respect to emergency department or outpatient visits. Digital alerts can considerably reduce hospitalisation and length of stay for certain cohorts in remote monitoring. Further research is required to confirm these findings and trial different alerting protocols to understand optimal alerting to guide future widespread implementation.

Identifiers

PMID33420338
PMCPMC7794456

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.