ArticleFamily practice2025
The effect and implementation of the COVID Box, a remote patient monitoring system for patients with a COVID-19 infection in primary care: a matched cohort study.
Article in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pressure on hospitals increased tremendously. To alleviate this pressure, a remote patient monitoring system called the COVID Box was developed and implemented in primary care. The aim was to assess whether the COVID Box in primary care could reduce emergency department (ED) referrals due to a COVID-19 infection. A matched cohort study was performed between December 2020 and June 2021. Patients with a COVID-19 infection in need of intensive monitoring based on the clinical judgement of their own general practitioner received the COVID Box in primary care combining home monitoring of vital parameters with daily video consultations. The control group was retrospectively matched by propensity score matching. We conducted a subgroup analysis in higher-risk patients with oxygen saturation measurements, considering oxygen saturation as a critical parameter for assessing the risk of a complicated infection. We included 205 patients, of whom 41 patients were monitored with the COVID Box (mean age 70 and 53.7% male) and 164 in the control group (mean age 71.5 and 53% male). No difference was found in ED referrals between the intervention and control groups in our primary analysis. In the subgroup analysis, we found a nonsignificant trend that remote monitoring could reduce the ED referrals. While the overall study found comparable ED referrals between groups, the subgroup analysis suggested a promising prospect in reducing ED referrals due to remote monitoring of higher-risk patients with acute respiratory disease in primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.