Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35468091›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2022

The Box-eHealth in the Outpatient Clinic Follow-up of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Cost-Utility Analysis.

Roderick Willem Treskes, M Elske van den Akker-van Marle, Louise van Winden, Nicole van Keulen, Enno Tjeerd van der Velde, Saskia Beeres, Douwe Atsma, Martin Jan Schalij

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02976376 (The Box), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT02976376 nacompletednot on this map

The Box: Using Smart Technology to Improve One-year Outcome of Myocardial Infarction Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorLeiden University Medical CenterRan2016 to 2018Enrolled200ConditionsMyocardial InfarctionArmsThe Box
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roderick Willem TreskesDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3210-6005
M Elske van den Akker-van MarleDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5269-509X
Louise van WindenDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2188-0185
Nicole van KeulenDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6664-1324
Enno Tjeerd van der VeldeDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0027-8059
Saskia BeeresDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1916-078X
Douwe AtsmaDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9664-2985
Martin Jan SchalijDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3767-5231
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmartphone compatible wearables have been released on the consumers market, enabling remote monitoring. Remote monitoring is often named as a tool to reduce the cost of care.

objectiveThe primary purpose of this paper is to describe a cost-utility analysis of an eHealth intervention compared to regular follow-up in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

methodsIn this trial, of which clinical results have been published previously, patients with an AMI were randomized in a 1:1 fashion between an eHealth intervention and regular follow-up. The remote monitoring intervention consisted of a blood pressure monitor, weight scale, electrocardiogram device, and step counter. Furthermore, two in-office outpatient clinic visits were replaced by e-visits. The control group received regular care. The differences in mean costs and quality of life per patient between both groups during one-year follow-up were calculated.

resultsMean costs per patient were €2417±2043 (US $2657±2246) for the intervention and €2888±2961 (US $3175±3255) for the control group. This yielded a cost reduction of €471 (US $518) per patient. This difference was not statistically significant (95% CI -€275 to €1217; P=.22, US $-302 to $1338). The average quality-adjusted life years in the first year of follow-up was 0.74 for the intervention group and 0.69 for the control (difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.01; P=.01).

conclusionseHealth in the outpatient clinic setting for patients who suffered from AMI is likely to be cost-effective compared to regular follow-up. Further research should be done to corroborate these findings in other patient populations and different care settings.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02976376; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976376. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8038.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionTelemedicineAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFollow-Up StudiesHumansQuality of Lifecost-effectivenesscost of carecost-utilityeHealthmyocardial infarctionoutpatientsquality of liferemote monitoringsmart technology

Identifiers

PMID35468091
PMCPMC9086875
OpenAlexW4224922476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.