Effectiveness of telemonitoring versus usual care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of telemonitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL up to September 2018. We selected randomised controlled trials comparing telemonitoring and control groups for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management. Two reviewers independently examined articles based on eligibility, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias. The Cochrane tool was applied for assessing the risk of bias. The 95% confidence interval was calculated.

A total of 28 randomised controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis revealed that there were no variables showing a statistically significant difference between telemonitoring and control groups. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation rate (six studies) was not different between two groups (risk ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.31–1.42). Subgroup analysis showed that telemonitoring reduced exacerbation rates when the intervention continued for longer than six months or pulmonary function was monitored. No differences between groups were noticed for mortality (seven studies, risk ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60–1.34). Similarly, no differences between groups were observed in the patient-reported outcomes (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire-Dyspnea score) and for health service utilization (length of hospital stay, number of hospital admissions, number of emergency room visits).

Telemonitoring for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was unlikely to result in statistically significant improvements in health outcomes. However, our novel finding was that at least six months of intervention duration and monitoring of pulmonary function play roles in activating the effects of telemonitoring.