ArticleJHLT open2026
Implementing remote patient monitoring in lung transplant care: A real-world evaluation.
Article in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung transplant recipients require close post-transplant surveillance, which imposes substantial travel and resource burdens. Remote patient monitoring (RPM), which uses home-based transmission of patient symptoms and physiologic data, has demonstrated benefit in other populations; however, data in lung transplantation remains limited. Methods: We conducted a single-center observational study of lung transplant recipients enrolled in a 12-month RPM program at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Patients used home devices to transmit symptoms, vital signs, and spirometry. Prespecified abnormal values generated alerts that were reviewed and escalated as appropriate. Primary outcomes included adherence, early discontinuation, and the impact of escalations on management. Results: One hundred and sixteen patients were enrolled. By December 2025, 47 (40.5%) completed the program, 15 (12.9%) discontinued participation, and 54 (46.6%) remained monitored. The median distance from the transplant center was 234 miles (IQR 99-385). Four hundred and seventy escalation alerts were generated, most commonly due to declines in FEV₁ (58.3%). Most escalations (72.8%) were managed with continued monitoring, while 27.2% prompted changes in care, including expedited clinic visits, diagnostic testing, medication adjustments, or emergency evaluation. Among 64 admissions with transmitted data, 31 (48.4%) were preceded by an RPM escalation in the prior 7 days. Conclusions: RPM is feasible and acceptable for post-transplant surveillance and can identify meaningful changes in health status and may be particularly useful with geographically dispersed patients. Nearly half of admissions with transmitted data were preceded by an escalation, but a substantial proportion were not, highlighting opportunities to optimize adherence and alerting thresholds.
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.