Key result
A systematic review of 44 studies found that while telecardiology is widely applied, there is limited good-quality evidence demonstrating its benefits on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Why the study?
Do telecardiology applications improve clinical, economic, or administrative outcomes?
Systematic Review (n=44)
Do telecardiology applications improve clinical, economic, or administrative outcomes?
Despite widespread application, there is limited high-quality evidence demonstrating the clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness of telecardiology.
Caution against routine telecardiology adoption without proven benefits; leaves open its clinical and economic value pending rigorous trials.
We carried out a systematic review of the literature on telecardiology assessment from 1992 to September 2003. We selected articles reporting clinical, economic or administrative outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed using an approach that considered both study design and study performance. Forty-four studies met the selection criteria. Studies of home care applications, particularly management of congestive heart failure, were of highest quality, giving a high degree of confidence in their findings. Studies on paediatric and non-emergency adult hospital applications were of poorer quality; they were mostly reports of case series and gave relatively little detail. Economic analysis was limited to cost studies and in most cases was judged to be of poor to fair quality. While telecardiology has been widely applied, there is still limited good-quality evidence of its benefits to health-care. Success in establishing the feasibility of telecardiology applications is offset by a failure to obtain convincing data on their influence on health outcomes and on their cost-effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hailey et al. (2004) conducted a systematic review in Telecardiology (n=44). Telecardiology was evaluated on Clinical, economic or administrative outcomes. A systematic review of 44 studies found that while telecardiology is widely applied, there is limited good-quality evidence demonstrating its benefits on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: