Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38418384›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2024

REMOTE-ILD study: Description of the protocol for a multicentre, 12-month randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring of spirometry and pulse oximetry in patients with interstitial lung disease.

Sarah Barth, Colin Edwards, Rebecca Borton, Dan Beever, Wendy Adams, Gisli Jenkins, Elena Pizzo, Iain Stewart, Melissa Wickremasinghe

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05662124 (Comparison of Health Outcomes in a Remote Monitoring Programme Versus Usual Care in Interstitial Lung Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

NCT05662124 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Comparison of Health Outcomes in a Remote Monitoring Programme Versus Usual Care in Interstitial Lung Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustRan2023 to 2025Enrolled139ConditionsInterstitial Lung DiseaseArmsRemote monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Sarah BarthRespiratory Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK s.barth@nhs.net.ORCID 0009-0001-8433-8521
Colin EdwardspatientMpower Ltd, Dublin, Ireland.
Rebecca BortonpatientMpower Ltd, Dublin, Ireland.
Dan BeeverAction For Pulmonary Fibrosis, Peterborough, UK.
Wendy AdamsAction For Pulmonary Fibrosis, Peterborough, UK.
Gisli JenkinsNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7929-2119
Elena PizzoUniversity College London, London, UK.
Iain StewartNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1340-2688
Melissa WickremasingheRespiratory Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
CorPower Ocean (Sweden) · SEImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBLung Institute · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRemote monitoring of home physiological measurements has been proposed as a solution to support patients with chronic diseases as well as facilitating virtual consultations and pandemic preparedness for the future. Daily home spirometry and pulse oximetry have been demonstrated to be safe and acceptable to patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) but there is currently limited evidence to support its integration into clinical practice.

aimOur aim is to understand the clinical utility of frequent remote physiological measurements in ILD and the impact of integrating these into clinical practice from a patient, clinical and health economic perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 132 patients with fibrotic ILD will be recruited and randomised to receive either usual care with remote digital monitoring of home spirometry and pulse oximetry or usual care alone for 12 months. All participants will complete health-related quality of life and experience questionnaires.The primary outcome compares the availability of spirometry measurements within the 2 weeks preceding planned clinic appointments. Secondary outcomes will explore other aspects of clinical and cost-effectiveness of the remote monitoring programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0309). All participants will provide informed consent.This study is registered with www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05662124).The results of the study will be submitted for presentation at regional and national conferences and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Reports will be prepared for study participants with the support from our public involvement representatives through the charity Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis.

Indexed as

Lung Diseases, InterstitialQuality of LifeCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicOximetryRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSpirometryTreatment OutcomeInterstitial FibrosisRespiratory Function Test

Identifiers

PMID38418384
PMCPMC10910426
OpenAlexW4392300860

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.