Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35797044›Full record

Observational studyJAMA network open2022

Hospitalization Outcomes Among Patients With COVID-19 Undergoing Remote Monitoring.

Bradley H Crotty, Yilu Dong, Purushottam Laud, Ryan J Hanson, Bradley Gershkowitz, Annie C Penlesky, Neemit Shah, Michael Anderes, Erin Green, Karen Fickel and 2 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Prediction models for COVID-19 disease outcomes.Emerging microbes & infections · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors.

Bradley H CrottyCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Yilu DongCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Purushottam LaudCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Ryan J HansonCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Bradley GershkowitzCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Annie C PenleskyCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Neemit ShahCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Michael AnderesInception Labs at Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin Health Network, Milwaukee.
Erin GreenInception Labs at Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin Health Network, Milwaukee.
Karen FickelInception Labs at Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin Health Network, Milwaukee.
Siddhartha SinghCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
Melek M SomaiCollaborative for Healthcare Delivery Science, Center for Advancing Population Science, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Health care systems have implemented remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs to manage patients with COVID-19 at home, but the associations between participation and outcomes or resource utilization are unclear. Objective: To assess whether an RPM program for COVID-19 is associated with lower or higher likelihood of hospitalization and whether patients who are admitted present earlier or later for hospital care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational, cohort study of RPM was performed at Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin Health Network, an academic health system in southeastern Wisconsin. Participants included patients with internal primary care physicians and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in the ambulatory setting between March 30, 2020, and December 15, 2020. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2021, to February 2, 2022. Exposures: Activation of RPM program. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations within 2 to 14 days of a positive test. Inverse propensity score weighting was used to account for differences between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed looking at usage of the RPM among patients who activated the program. Results: A total of 10 660 COVID-19-positive ambulatory patients were eligible, and 9378 (88.0%) had email or mobile numbers on file and were invited into the RPM program; the mean (SD) age was 46.9 (16.3) years and 5448 patients (58.1%) were women. Patients who activated monitoring (5364 patients [57.2%]) had a mean (SD) of 35.3 (33.0) check-ins and a mean (SD) of 1.27 (2.79) (median [IQR], 0 [0-1]) free-text comments. A total of 878 patients (16.4%) experienced at least 1 alert; 128 of 5364 activated patients (2.4%) and 158 of 4014 inactivated patients (3.9%) were hospitalized (χ21 = 18.65; P < .001). In weighted regression analysis, activation of RPM was associated with a lower odds of hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001) adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and time period. Monitored patients had a longer mean (SD) time between test and hospitalization (6.67 [3.21] days vs 5.24 [3.03] days), a shorter length of stay (4.44 [4.43] days vs 7.14 [8.63] days), and less intensive care use (15 patients [0.3%] vs 44 patients [1.1%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that activation of an RPM program is associated with lower hospitalization, intensive care use, and length of stay among patients with COVID-19.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cohort StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35797044
PMCPMC9264036

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.