Telemedicine infectious diseases consultations and clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Telemedicine use is increasing in many specialties, but its impact on clinical outcomes in infectious diseases has not been systematically studied and reviewed. The proposed systematic review will evaluate the current evidence regarding the effect of telemedicine infectious diseases consultation on a range of clinical outcomes, including mortality, hospital readmission, antimicrobial use, and cost.Method/design
Standard systematic review methodology will be used, with searches of Ovid MEDLINE 1946-, https://embase.com/ 1947-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and https://clinicaltrials.gov/ 1997-. There will be no restriction on language or year of publication. The primary outcome will be 30-day all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes will include readmission within 30 days after discharge from an initial hospitalization with an infection, patient compliance/adherence, patient satisfaction, cost or cost effectiveness, length of hospital stay, antimicrobial use, and antimicrobial stewardship. Bias will be assessed using standard Cochrane methodologies. Data will be grouped by outcome and narratively synthesized. Meta-analysis will be performed for outcomes with clinical or methodological homogeneity. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be registered through PROSPERO. Pre-planned subgroup analyses will be detailed.Discussion
A number of studies have documented the feasibility of telemedicine for infectious diseases, but a synthesis of clinical outcomes data with telemedicine infectious diseases consultation has not been performed. This systematic review will analyze many clinical outcomes of telemedicine infectious diseases consultation. The findings of this study will add to established literature about feasibility of telemedicine consultation by synthesizing the evidence for clinical effectiveness.Systematic review registration
PROSPERO CRD42018105225.
SUBMITTER: Burnham JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6554925 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Telemedicine use is increasing in many specialties, but its impact on clinical outcomes in infectious diseases has not been systematically reviewed. We reviewed the current evidence for clinical effectiveness of telemedicine infectious diseases consultations, including outcomes of mortality, hospital readmission, antimicrobial use, cost, length of stay, adherence, and patient satisfaction. Methods:We queried Ovid MEDLINE 1946-, Embase.com 1947-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov 1997- through August 5, 2019, for studies looking at clinical outcomes of infectious diseases in the setting of telemedicine use. We did not restrict by language or year of publication. Clinical outcomes searched included 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day readmissions, patient compliance/adherence, patient satisfaction, cost or cost-effectiveness, length of hospital stay, antimicrobial use, and antimicrobial stewardship. Bias was assessed using standard methodologies. PROSPERO CRD42018105225. Results:From a search pool of 1154 studies, only 18 involved telemedicine infectious diseases consultation and our selected clinical outcomes. The outcomes tracked were heterogeneous, precluding meta-analysis, and the majority of studies were of poor quality. Overall, clinical outcomes with telemedicine infectious diseases consultation seem comparable to in-person infectious diseases consultation. Conclusions:Although in widespread use, the clinical effectiveness of telemedicine infectious diseases consultations has yet to be sufficiently studied. Further studies, or publication of previously collected and available data, are warranted to verify the cost-effectiveness of this widespread practice. Systematic review registration:PROSPERO CRD42018105225.
| S-EPMC6925389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a paucity of clinical trials informing specific questions faced by infectious diseases (ID) specialists. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry offers an opportunity to evaluate the ID clinical trials portfolio.MethodsWe examined 40,970 interventional trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2010, focusing on study conditions and interventions to identify ID-related trials. Relevance to ID was manually confirmed for each programmatically identified trial, yielding 3570 ID trials and 37,400 non-ID trials for analysis.ResultsThe number of ID trials was similar to the number of trials identified as belonging to cardiovascular medicine (n = 3437) or mental health (n = 3695) specialties. Slightly over half of ID trials were treatment-oriented trials (53%, vs. 77% for non-ID trials) followed by prevention (38%, vs. 8% in non-ID trials). ID trials tended to be larger than those of other specialties, with a median enrollment of 125 subjects (interquartile range [IQR], 45-400) vs. 60 (IQR, 30-160) for non-ID trials. Most ID studies are randomized (73%) but nonblinded (56%). Industry was the funding source in 51% of ID trials vs. 10% that were primarily NIH-funded. HIV-AIDS trials constitute the largest subset of ID trials (n = 815 [23%]), followed by influenza vaccine (n = 375 [11%]), and hepatitis C (n = 339 [9%]) trials. Relative to U.S. and global mortality rates, HIV-AIDS and hepatitis C virus trials are over-represented, whereas lower respiratory tract infection trials are under-represented in this large sample of ID clinical trials.ConclusionsThis work is the first to characterize ID clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, providing a framework to discuss prioritization, methodology, and policy.
| S-EPMC3797691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Most people around the world do not have access to facility-based diagnostic testing, and the gap in availability of diagnostic tests is a major public health challenge. Self-testing, self-sampling, and institutional testing outside conventional clinical settings are transforming infectious disease diagnostic testing in a wide range of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We examined the delivery models of infectious disease diagnostic testing outside clinics to assess the impact on test uptake and linkage to care. Methods:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching 6 databases and including original research manuscripts comparing testing outside clinics with conventional testing. The main outcomes were test uptake and linkage to care, delivery models, and adverse outcomes. Data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes within thematic areas of interest were pooled, and the quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019140828).We identified 10 386 de-duplicated citations, and 76 studies were included. Data from 18 studies were pooled in meta-analyses. Studies focused on HIV (48 studies), chlamydia (8 studies), and multiple diseases (20 studies). HIV self-testing increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (9 studies: pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.59; 95% CI, 1.06-6.29; moderate quality). Self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections increased test uptake compared with facility-based testing (7 studies: pooled OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 0.97-3.12; moderate quality). Conclusions. ?Testing outside of clinics increased test uptake without significant adverse outcomes. These testing approaches provide an opportunity to expand access and empower patients. Further implementation research, scale-up of effective service delivery models, and policies in LMIC settings are needed.
| S-EPMC7545117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance: Telemedicine has been shown to be an efficient and effective means of providing care to patients with chronic disease especially in remote and undeserved regions, by improving access to care and reduce healthcare cost. However, the evidence surrounding its applicability in type 1 diabetes remains scarce and conflicting. Objective: To synthesize evidence and quantify the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions for the management of glycemic and clinical outcomes in type 1 diabetes patients, relative to comparator conditions. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for published articles since inception until December 2016. Study Selection: Original articles reporting the results of randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of telemedicine in people with type 1 diabetes were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed quality, and strength of evidence. Interventions were categorized based upon the telemedicine focus (monitoring, education, consultation, case-management, and peer mentoring). Main Outcome and Measure: Absolute change in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up assessment. Results: A total of 38 studies described in 41 articles were identified. Positive effects on glycemic control were noted with studies examining telemedicine, with a mean reduction of 0.18% at the end of intervention. Studies with longer duration (>6 months) who had recruited patients with a higher baseline HbA1c (?9%) were associated with larger effects. Telemedicine interventions that involve individualized assessments, audit with feedback and skill building were also more effective in improving glycemic control. However, no benefits were observed on blood pressure, lipids, weight, quality of life, and adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: There is insufficient evidence to support telemedicine use for glycemic control and other clinically relevant outcome among patients with type 1 diabetes.
| S-EPMC5447671 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveElectronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes.Materials and methodsWe searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome.ResultsWe found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias.ConclusionDespite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them.
| S-EPMC7647247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) is one of the world's greatest health threats with rising prevalence. Global digitalization leads to new digital approaches in diabetes management, such as telemedical interventions. Telemedicine, which is the use of information and communication technologies, may provide medical services over spatial distances to improve clinical patient outcomes by increasing access to diabetes care and medical information.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine whether telemedical interventions effectively improve diabetes control using studies that pooled patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and whether the benefits are greater in patients diagnosed with T2DM than in those diagnosed with T1DM. We analyzed the primary outcome glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and the secondary outcomes fasting blood glucose (FBG), blood pressure (BP), body weight, BMI, quality of life (QoL), cost, and time saving.MethodsPublications were systematically identified by searching Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, and CINAHL databases for studies published between January 2008 and April 2020, considering systematic reviews (SRs), meta-analyses (MAs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and clinical trials (CTs). Study quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Effective Public Health Practice Project, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence qualitative checklist. We organized the trials by communication technologies in real-time video or audio interventions, asynchronous interventions, and combined interventions (synchronous and asynchronous communication).ResultsFrom 1116 unique citations, we identified 31 eligible studies (n=15 high, n=14 moderate, n=1 weak, and n=1 critically low quality). We selected 21 SRs and MAs, 8 RCTs, 1 non-RCT, and 1 qualitative study. Of the 10 trials, 3 were categorized as real-time video, 1 as real-time video and audio, 4 as asynchronous, and 2 as combined intervention. Significant decline in HbA1c levels based on pooled T1DM and T2DM patients data ranged from -0.22% weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.15; P<.001) to -0.64% mean difference (95% CI -1.01 to -0.26; P<.001). The intervention effect on lowering HbA1c values might be significantly smaller for patients with T1DM than for patients with T2DM. Evidence on the impact on BP, body weight, FBG, cost effectiveness, and time saving was smaller compared with HbA1c but indicated potential in some publications.ConclusionsTelemedical interventions might be clinically effective in improving diabetes control overall, and they might significantly improve HbA1c concentrations. Patients with T2DM could benefit more than patients with T1DM regarding lowering HbA1c levels. Further studies with longer duration and larger cohorts are necessary.
| S-EPMC7935656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic wounds have been a great burden to patients and the health care system. The popularity of the internet and smart devices, such as mobile phones and tablets, has made it possible to adopt telemedicine (TM) to improve the management of chronic wounds. However, studies conducted by different researchers have reported contradictory results on the effect of TM on chronic wound management. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TM in chronic wound management. METHODS:We systematically searched multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) to identify eligible studies published from inception to June 12, 2019. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and interventional cohort studies that investigated the use of TM in chronic wound management. RCT and observational data were analyzed separately. A meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were conducted to estimate endpoints. RESULTS:A total of 6 RCTs and 6 cohort studies including 3913 patients were included. Of these, 4 studies used tablets or mobile phones programmed with apps, such as Skype and specialized interactive systems, whereas the remaining 8 studies used email, telephone, and videoconferencing to facilitate the implementation of TM using a specialized system. Efficacy outcomes in RCTs showed no significant differences in wound healing (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI 0.96-1.39; P=.13), and wound healing around 1 year (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.89-1.23; P=.15). Noninferiority criteria of TM were met. A decreased risk of amputation in patients receiving TM was revealed (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.71; P=.001). The result of cohort studies showed that TM was more effective than standard care (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.43-2.12; P<.001), whereas the outcome efficacy RR of wound healing around 1 year (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96-1.53; P=.56) and 3 months (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.47-3.3; P=.67) was not significantly different between TM and standard care. Noninferiority criteria of TM were met for wound healing around 1 year in cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS:Currently available evidence suggests that TM seems to have similar efficacy and safety, and met noninferiority criteria with conventional standard care of chronic wounds. Large-scale, well-designed RCTs are warranted.
| S-EPMC7381084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been limited evaluation of the association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). AIM:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for vedolizumab. METHODS:Through a systematic literature search through 28 February 2019, we identified five cohort studies (558 patients, 42% with ulcerative colitis) reporting the association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with IBD. We calculated mean difference (MD) in vedolizumab trough concentration in patients achieving vs not achieving clinical outcomes, and qualitatively synthesized thresholds associated with favourable outcomes. RESULTS:In patients with UC, median vedolizumab trough concentrations were consistently higher in patients achieving clinical remission (median, 14.3 ?g/mL vs 10.5 ?g/mL; MD, 5.1 ?g/mL, 95% CI, 2.8-7.4) or endoscopic remission (median, 13.0 ?g/mL vs 9.7; MD, 5.1 ?g/mL, 95% CI, 2.2-7.9). In patients with CD, there was no significant difference in median vedolizumab trough concentrations in patients achieving vs not achieving clinical remission (MD, 2.0 ?g/mL; 95% CI, -0.5 to 4.5) or endoscopic remission (MD, 3.6 ?g/mL; 95% CI, -1.4 to 8.6). In patients with UC, week 6 vedolizumab trough concentrations ?18.5-20.8 ?g/mL, and maintenance trough concentrations ?9.0-12.6 ?g/mL were associated with favourable clinical outcomes. Antibodies to vedolizumab were reported in 1.7%-3.0% patients on maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION:Based on meta-analysis, patients with UC who achieve endoscopic and clinical remission have significantly higher vedolizumab trough concentration during maintenance therapy. Vedolizumab trough concentration >20 ?g/mL at week 6, and >12 ?g/mL during maintenance may be associated with better outcomes, though cause-effect relationship remains unclear. Prospective studies on reactive and proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of vedolizumab (vs empiric dose escalation) are warranted.
| S-EPMC7083298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe impact of rheumatic diseases on COVID-19 infection remains poorly investigated. Here we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic diseases.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus and preprint database up to 29th August 2020, for publications with confirmed COVID-19 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases. The primary outcomes were the rates of hospitalization, oxygen support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. A meta-analysis of effect sizes using the random-effects models was performed, and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. The data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (the COVID-19 GRA) was used as a reference.ResultsA total of 31 articles involving 1138 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The publications were from Europe, Asia and North America, but none from other continents. The overall rates of hospitalization, oxygen support, ICU admission and fatality among COVID-19 infected patients with rheumatic diseases were 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.67), 0.33 (95% CI 0.21-0.47), 0.09 (95% CI 0.05-0.15) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.03-0.11), respectively. The rate of oxygen support in Europe (0.48, 95% CI 0.4-0.57) was higher than that in other continents. Among all hospitalized patients, the rates of oxygen support, ICU admission and fatality were 0.61 (95% CI 0.48-0.73), 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.21) and 0.13 (95% CI 0.09-0.18), respectively. The fatality rate was highest in Europe (0.19, 95% CI 0.15-0.24). The fatality rate was higher both in this meta-analysis and the COVID-19 GRA (7.0% and 6.7%, respectively) than that (3.4%) in WHO database, although the age, gender and comorbidity were not matched.ConclusionPatients with rheumatic diseases remain vulnerable with substantial rates of severe outcomes and a geographic variation. More studies were urgently needed to elucidate the risk factors of severe outcomes in this population.
| S-EPMC7889462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUveitis is a group of intraocular inflammatory diseases whose primary treatment involves immunosuppression. Although corticosteroids (CSs) remain the mainstay therapy, sirolimus is among the recently studied immunomodulatory drugs for treating noninfectious uveitis (NIU).ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to assess and summarize the updated evidence on the outcomes of treatment with sirolimus for NIU.Materials and methodsTwo reviewers conducted a systematic search on November 5, 2018, of electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library) and clinical trial registers having no restrictions on language or publication date. The primary outcome was uveitis activity as measured by vitreous haze (VH), while the secondary outcomes included central macular thickness (CMT), best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), CS-sparing effect, IOP elevation, and other adverse events. A meta-analysis was conducted on selected studies with appropriate clinical and methodological homogeneity.ResultsSeven studies were included and reviewed. Four randomized clinical trials were eligible for meta-analysis: SAVE 2013, One-year outcomes of the SAVE study, SAVE 2 2016, SAKURA 2016. The pooled proportions of inflammation control (VH improvement) were 38% (95% CI 16.19%-62.66%) during a 6-month follow-up and 49.97% (95% CI 16.19%-83.03%) during a 6- to 12-month follow-up with the latter showing a significantly higher response rate (p=0.0472). BCVA improvement was 62.2% (95% CI 33.17%-87.11%) during a 6-month follow-up and 56.86% (95% CI 20.91%-89.05%) during a 6- to 12-month follow-up with no significant difference between the two (p=0.3705). Increased IOP remained at 7.11% (95% CI 3.46%-12.68%) for both a 6-month follow-up and up to a 12-month follow-up duration. The CS-sparing effect of sirolimus was also well demonstrated. A reduction in CMT was observed, and only minor drug-related adverse events were reported in all the studies reviewed.ConclusionThis review provided evidence that sirolimus is a promising treatment option for controlling inflammatory activity, improving visual acuity, and sparing CS use with minor adverse events for NIU.
| S-EPMC6478489 | biostudies-literature