Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39834044›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of heart failure2025

Remote patient monitoring in heart failure: A comprehensive meta-analysis of effective programme components for hospitalization and mortality reduction.

Ignace L J De Lathauwer, Wessel W Nieuwenhuys, Frederique Hafkamp, Marta Regis, Rutger W M Brouwers, Mathias Funk, Hareld M C Kemps

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The clinical value of circadian biofeedback in chronic heart failure.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Remote monitoring and outcomes in heart failure: 5-year study.Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Ignace L J De Lathauwer *Department of Cardiology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6639-9428
Wessel W Nieuwenhuys *Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Frederique HafkampNederlands Hart Netwerk, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Marta RegisDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Statistics, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Rutger W M BrouwersDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Mathias FunkDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Hareld M C KempsDepartment of Cardiology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsMethods of non-invasive remote patient monitoring (RPM) for heart failure (HF) remain diverse. Understanding factors that influence the effectiveness of RPM on HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations, mortality, and emergency department visits is crucial for developing successful RPM interventions. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize and compare existing literature on RPM components that impact HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations, mortality and emergency department visits in HF patients. METHODS AND

resultsA systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL) identified randomized controlled trials from January 2012 to June 2023, comparing non-invasive RPM interventions for HF with usual care. A random-effects meta-analysis assessed outcomes, and additional analyses identified effective RPM components. A total of 41 studies with 16 312 patients (mean follow-up: 9.88 ± 6.37 months) were included. RPM was associated with lower mortality risk (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.81 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.95; I

conclusionThis meta-analysis confirms the efficacy of RPM in reducing HF-related hospitalizations and mortality. Effective components include self-management, education modules, and video communication. However, heterogeneity among interventions challenges the overall evaluation. Modernizing RPM with advanced technologies like non-invasive sensors, artificial intelligence, and cardiac telerehabilitation could enhance its potential.

Indexed as

Heart FailureHospitalizationHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicRemote Patient MonitoringTelemedicineeHealthHeart failureHospitalizationRemote patient monitoringTelemonitoring

Identifiers

PMID39834044
PMCPMC12502459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.