Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42275060›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Remote Monitoring Approaches to Reduce Readmissions After Infection and Sepsis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Sachin Yende, Victor B Talisa, Kristin Mayes, Kelly Williams, Adelina Malito, Florian B Mayr, Derek C Angus, Rana Awdish, Qingfeng Liang, Kimberly J Rak and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04829188 (Comparative Effectiveness of Readmission Reduction Interventions for Individuals with Sepsis or Pneumonia), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT04829188 nacompletednot on this map

Comparative Effectiveness of Readmission Reduction Interventions for Individuals with Sepsis or Pneumonia

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PittsburghRan2021 to 2024Enrolled1,288ConditionsSepsis, Pneumonia, Lower Resp Tract Infection, Covid19ArmsStructured Telephone Support (STS), Low-intensity Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM-Low), High-intensity Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM-High), Standard Response Team, Enhanced Response Team
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

19 authors.

Sachin YendeThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Victor B TalisaThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kristin MayesUPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Center for High-Value Health Care, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kelly WilliamsUPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Center for High-Value Health Care, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Adelina MalitoUPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Center for High-Value Health Care, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Florian B MayrThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Derek C AngusThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Rana AwdishHenry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
Qingfeng LiangUPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Center for High-Value Health Care, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kimberly J RakThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jacqueline BarnesThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Elizabeth LorenziBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Kert VieleBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Chung-Chou H ChangThe Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Casey McCauleyUPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Center for High-Value Health Care, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Melanie QuintanaBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Anna McGlothlinBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Farah KhandwalaBerry Consultants LLC, Austin, Texas.
Jatin DaveUPMC Health Plan, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses remote monitoring to reduce hospital readmissions, yet its effectiveness remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate effectiveness of remote monitoring in reducing readmissions following hospitalizations for serious infections overall and across prespecified subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 25, 2021, to December 9, 2024, using response adaptive randomization among postdischarge patients with sepsis or lower respiratory tract infection across 19 hospitals. Eligible patients were 21 years or older, lived in western Pennsylvania, were insured through the UPMC Health Plan or traditional fee-for-service Medicare, had a smartphone or other internet-connected device, had no cognitive impairment, and were at moderate or high risk for readmission at index hospitalization admission based on an internal predictive model. Analyses were based on intention to treat; data were analyzed from April to June 2025. Intervention: Four remote monitoring strategies combining questionnaire intensity (low vs high) and clinical response teams (standard vs enhanced) compared with usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point consisted of days at home at 90 days after discharge, assessed by posterior probability distribution for the cumulative odds ratios (CORs) in each study arm compared with usual care. Secondary end points included mortality, readmission, functional status, quality of life, and use of emergency department and hospice services. Results: Among the 1286 patients included in the analysis, the median age was 63 (IQR, 54-71) years; 665 patients (51.7%) were female. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (IQR, 3-9), and 386 patients (32.6%) received intensive care. Patients were randomized to usual care (n = 399) or remote patient monitoring (RPM) with low- or high-intensity questionnaires and standard or enhanced clinical response team combinations: RPM-low standard response (n = 204), RPM-high standard response (n = 129), RPM-low enhanced response (n = 383), and RPM-high enhanced response (n = 171). Of 887 patients assigned to remote monitoring arms, 529 (59.6%) enrolled in the remote monitoring program. The median home days were similar across all study arms: 90 (IQR, 83-90) for usual care, 90 (IQR, 84-90) for RPM-low standard response, 90 (IQR, 85-90) for RPM-high standard response, 90 (IQR, 83-90) for RPM-low enhanced response, and 90 (IQR, 84-90) for RPM-high enhanced response. Compared with usual care, the CORs were 0.96 (credible interval [CrI], 0.70-1.32) for RPM-low standard response, 0.86 (95% CrI, 0.60-1.23) for RPM-high standard response, 1.01 (95% CrI, 0.76-1.33) for RPM-low enhanced response, and 0.96 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.36) for RPM-high enhanced response, and superiority probability was less than 55% for all comparisons. At least 1 readmission occurred in 151 of 399 patients (37.8%) in the usual care arm, 81 of 204 (39.7%) in the RPM-low standard response arm, 57 of 129 (44.2%) in the RPM-high standard response arm, 143 of 383 (37.3%) in the RPM-low enhanced response arm, and 62 of 171 (36.3%) in the RPM-high enhanced response arm. Among patients 65 years and older, standard and enhanced response arms had fewer home days compared with usual care (COR, 0.56 [95% CrI, 0.36-0.85] and 0.67 [95% CrI, 0.45-0.98], respectively; inferiority probability, 99.6% and 97.9%, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Among trial patients discharged after hospitalization for serious infections, remote monitoring did not increase time spent alive at home but reduced it in those 65 years and older. These findings support reevaluating and tailoring remote monitoring after acute care for sepsis and lower respiratory tract infection to support further alignment with patients' needs and desire for personalized monitoring. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04829188.

Indexed as

Patient ReadmissionSepsisAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPennsylvaniaRemote Patient MonitoringUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42275060
PMCPMC13261490

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.