Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36263114›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of heart failure2021

Remote Patient Monitoring in Heart Failure: Factors for Clinical Efficacy.

Ankit Bhatia, Thomas M Maddox

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Role of telemedicine in cardiovascular care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Ankit BhatiaDivision of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7290-9462
Thomas M MaddoxDivision of Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1426-9433

Funding

CD2H - The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) IDeA CTR CollaborationU24TR002306 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI CHUTE, CHRISTOPHER G, EICHMANN, DAVID A. · 2017 to 2021
$28.9M
NCATS NIH HHS U24 TR002306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite clinical advances in its treatment, heart failure (HF) is associated with significant adverse clinical outcomes and is among the greatest drivers of healthcare utilization. Outpatient management of HF remains suboptimal, with gaps in the provision of evidence-based therapies, and difficulties in predicting and managing clinical decompensation. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has the potential to address these issues, and thus has been of increasing interest to HF clinicians and health systems. Economic incentives, including increasing RPM reimbursement and HF readmission penalties, are also spurring increased interest in RPM. This review establishes a framework for evaluating RPM based on its various components: 1) patient data collection, 2) data transmission, analysis, and presentation, and 3) care team review and clinical action. The existing evidence regarding RPM in HF management is also reviewed. Based on the data, we identify RPM features associated with clinical efficacy and describe emerging digital tools that have the promise of addressing current needs.

Indexed as

Heart failureTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36263114
PMCPMC9536717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.