+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality



Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases: a critical assessment of their methodological quality



Journal of Medical Internet Research 15(7): E150



Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of home telemonitoring interventions for patients with chronic diseases have increased over the past decade and become increasingly important to a wide range of clinicians, policy makers, and other health care stakeholders. While a few criticisms about their methodological rigor and synthesis approaches have recently appeared, no formal appraisal of their quality has been conducted yet. The primary aim of this critical review was to evaluate the methodology, quality, and reporting characteristics of prior reviews that have investigated the effects of home telemonitoring interventions in the context of chronic diseases. Ovid MEDLINE, the Database of Abstract of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) of the Cochrane Library were electronically searched to find relevant systematic reviews, published between January 1966 and December 2012. Potential reviews were screened and assessed for inclusion independently by three reviewers. Data pertaining to the methods used were extracted from each included review and examined for accuracy by two reviewers. A validated quality assessment instrument, R-AMSTAR, was used as a framework to guide the assessment process. Twenty-four reviews, nine of which were meta-analyses, were identified from more than 200 citations. The bibliographic search revealed that the number of published reviews has increased substantially over the years in this area and although most reviews focus on studying the effects of home telemonitoring on patients with congestive heart failure, researcher interest has extended to other chronic diseases as well, such as diabetes, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma. Nevertheless, an important number of these reviews appear to lack optimal scientific rigor due to intrinsic methodological issues. Also, the overall quality of reviews does not appear to have improved over time. While several criteria were met satisfactorily by either all or nearly all reviews, such as the establishment of an a priori design with inclusion and exclusion criteria, use of electronic searches on multiple databases, and reporting of studies characteristics, there were other important areas that needed improvement. Duplicate data extraction, manual searches of highly relevant journals, inclusion of gray and non-English literature, assessment of the methodological quality of included studies and quality of evidence were key methodological procedures that were performed infrequently. Furthermore, certain methodological limitations identified in the synthesis of study results have affected the results and conclusions of some reviews. Despite the availability of methodological guidelines that can be utilized to guide the proper conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and eliminate potential risks of bias, this knowledge has not yet been fully integrated in the area of home telemonitoring. Further efforts should be made to improve the design, conduct, reporting, and publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this area.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 056093428

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23880072


Related references

Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). Rofo 184(10): 937-940, 2013

A critical appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medical nursing interventions: a systematic review of reviews. BMJ Open 6(11): E011514, 2018

Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 2019, 2019

Effects of home telemonitoring interventions on patients with chronic heart failure: an overview of systematic reviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research 17(3): E63, 2015

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Probiotics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Pouchitis. Plos One 11(12): E0168785, 2017

Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 12(): 129-129, 2013

When poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses can mislead: a critical appraisal and update of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2019, 2019

Evaluating the methodologic quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Rofo 185(10): 937-940, 2014

Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 18(1): 154, 2018

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics. Journal of Endodontics 44(6): 903-913, 2018

Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. International Journal of Nursing Practice 23(1), 2016

Methodological quality evaluation of systematic reviews or meta-analyses on ERCC1 in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 143(11): 2245-2256, 2017

Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 86: 59-70, 2017

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China. International Journal of Nursing Practice 20(1): 70-78, 2015

The Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on the Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Cancer Pain Management. Pain Management Nursing 16(5): 781-791, 2016