Not all systematic reviews are systematic: A meta-review of the quality of systematic reviews for non-invasive remote monitoring in heart failure

We carried out a critical appraisal and synthesis of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses of remote monitoring for heart failure. A comprehensive literature search identified 65 relevant publications from 3333 citations. Seventeen studies fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Seven (41%) systematic reviews pooled results for meta-analysis. Eight (47%) considered all non-invasive remote monitoring strategies. Five (29%) focused on telemonitoring. Four (24%) included both non-invasive and invasive technologies. The reviews were appraised by two independent reviewers for their quality and risk of bias using the AMSTAR tool. According to the AMSTAR criteria, ten (58%) systematic reviews were of poor methodological quality. In the high quality reviews, the relative risk of mortality in patients who received remote monitoring ranged from 0.53 to 0.88. The high quality reviews also reported that remote monitoring reduced the relative risk of all-cause (0.52 to 0.96) and heart failure-related hospitalizations (0.72 to 0.79) and, as a consequence, healthcare costs. However, further research is required before considering widespread implementation of remote monitoring. The subset of the heart failure population that derives the most benefit from intensive monitoring, the best technology, and the optimum duration of monitoring, all need to be identified. © The Author(s) 2013

Not all systematic reviews are systematic: A meta-review of the quality of current systematic reviews and meta-analyses for remote monitoring in heart failure [Conference Abstract]

Background/aims: Remote monitoring for heart failure has not only been evaluated in a large number of randomised controlled trials, but also in many systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The aim of this meta-review was to identify, appraise and synthesise existing systematic reviews that have evaluated the effects of remote monitoring in heart failure. Methods: Using a Cochrane methodology, we electronically searched all relevant online databases and search engines, performed a forward citation search as well as hand-searched bibliographies. Only fully published systematic reviews of invasive and/or non-invasive remote monitoring interventions were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Results: Sixty-five publications from 3333 citations were identified. Seventeen fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality varied with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR scores) ranging from 2 to 11 (mean 5.88). Seven reviews (41%) pooled results from individual studies for meta-analysis. Eight (47%) considered all non-invasive remote monitoring strategies. Four (24%) focused specifically on telemonitoring. Four (24%) included studies investigating both non-invasive and invasive technologies. Population characteristics of the included studies were not reported consistently. Mortality and hospitalisations were the most frequently reported outcomes 12 (70%). Only five reviews (29%) reported healthcare costs and compliance. A high degree of heterogeneity was reported in many of the meta-analyses. Conclusions: These results should be considered in context of two negative RCTs of remote monitoring for heart failure that have been published since the meta-analyses (TIM-HF and Tele-HF). However, high quality reviews demonstrated improved mortality, quality of life, reduction in hospitalisations and healthcare costs