Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35252824›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

The impact of remote home monitoring of people with COVID-19 using pulse oximetry: A national population and observational study.

Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Theo Georghiou, Steve Morris, Nadia E Crellin, Ian Litchfield, Efthalia Massou, Manbinder S Sidhu, Sonila M Tomini, Cecilia Vindrola-Padros, Holly Walton and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Patients' experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring services for COVID-19 patients: A rapid mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
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

11 authors.

Chris Sherlaw-JohnsonNuffield Trust, 59 New Cavendish Street, London, Northern Ireland W1G 7LP, United Kingdom.
Theo GeorghiouNuffield Trust, 59 New Cavendish Street, London, Northern Ireland W1G 7LP, United Kingdom.
Steve MorrisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Nadia E CrellinNuffield Trust, 59 New Cavendish Street, London, Northern Ireland W1G 7LP, United Kingdom.
Ian LitchfieldCollege of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Institute of Applied Health Research, 40 Edgbaston Park Rd, Birmingham, Northern Ireland B15 2RT, United Kingdom.
Efthalia MassouDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.
Manbinder S SidhuHealth Services Management Centre, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, 40 Edgbaston Park Rd, Birmingham, Northern Ireland B15 2RT, United Kingdom.
Sonila M TominiDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street London, Northern Ireland WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Targeted Intervention, Charles Bell House, University College London, 43-45 Foley Street, London, Northern Ireland W1W 7TY, United Kingdom.
Holly WaltonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street London, Northern Ireland WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street London, Northern Ireland WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRemote home monitoring of people testing positive for COVID-19 using pulse oximetry was implemented across England during the Winter of 2020/21 to identify falling blood oxygen saturation levels at an early stage. This was hypothesised to enable earlier hospital admission, reduce the need for intensive care and improve survival. This study is an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the pre-hospital monitoring programme, COVID oximetry @home (CO@h).

methodsThe setting was all Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) areas in England where there were complete data on the number of people enrolled onto the programme between 2nd November 2020 and 21st February 2021. We analysed relationships at a geographical area level between the extent to which people aged 65 or over were enrolled onto the programme and outcomes over the period between November 2020 to February 2021.

findingsFor every 10% increase in coverage of the programme, mortality was reduced by 2%

interpretationThere are several possible explanations for our findings. One is that CO@h did not have the hypothesised impact. Another is that the low rates of enrolment and incomplete data in many areas reduced the chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. Also, CO@h has been implemented in many different ways across the country and these may have had varying levels of effect.

fundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator.

Indexed as

Clinical effectivenessCOVID-19Remote home monitoringSARS-CoV-2Silent hypoxiaVirtual wards

Identifiers

PMID35252824
PMCPMC8886180

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.