[Remote patient monitoring– an overview of systematic reviews for selected diagnosis groups]

Vallo Hult H, Elden H, Frerichs M, Gelander L, Greim G, Jivegård L, Khan J, Magnusson K, Mourtzinis G, Nyström O, Quitz K, Scharenberg C, Sjöland H, Svanberg T, Svedberg M, Wartenberg C
Record ID 32018011315
Original Title: Egenmonitorering - evidenskartläggning genom sammanställning av systematiska översikter för utvalda diagnosgrupper
Authors' objectives: Background In Region Västra Götaland (VGR), the development of remote patient monitoring is given high priority, aiming for improvements for patients and reduction of healthcare costs. In this report we defined remote patient monitoring as continuous follow-up of relevant health-related parameters of patients located outside healthcare facilities (e.g. at home). Measurements taken by analogue or digital devices, objective and/or subjective assessments, are delivered digitally to the patient and to a healthcare professional. The healthcare professional provides the patient with feedback on the reported data (feedback may be automatically generated if data are within a predefined range). The plan in VGR is to introduce remote monitoring in selected diagnosis groups – some of which already started using remote monitoring. Aim The aim of this report was to provide an overview of systematic reviews regarding remote monitoring (as add on or replacement of visits in current standard of care) compared to standard of care in 25 selected diagnosis groups.
Authors' results and conclusions: This overview is limited to 17 of the selected 25 diagnosis groups. For eight of the selected groups, the project lacked a clinical representative. The number of systematic reviews regarding the selected diagnosis groups was relatively high, but only for nine of the 17 diagnosis groups we identified systematic reviews with a SNABBSTAR level of at least 5 considered a prerequisite for reliable conclusions regarding the question at issue. In total this level was reached by 16% (12/75) of the relevant systematic reviews. Conclusion Remote monitoring as ”add on” or as replacement for ordinary care in comparison to ordinary care is poorly studied for most diagnosis groups when assessed by scrutinizing systematic reviews of acceptable quality. For most diagnoses patients benefits are very limited or impossible to evaluate based on currently available scientific information. Possible risks and cost evaluations are missing.
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2023
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Other
MeSH Terms
  • Monitoring, Ambulatory
  • Telemedicine
  • Remote Sensing Technology
  • Remote Consultation
  • Monitoring, Physiologic
  • remote patient monitoring
Organisation Name: The Regional Health Technology Assessment Centre
Contact Address: The Regional Health Technology Assessment Centre, Region Vastra Gotaland, HTA-centrum, Roda Straket 8, Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset, 413 45 GOTHENBORG, Sweden
Contact Name: hta-centrum@vgregion.se
Contact Email: hta-centrum@vgregion.se
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.