4.4 Review

Telerheumatology: A Systematic Review

Journal

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Volume 69, Issue 10, Pages 1546-1557

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.23153

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases/NIH [AR-060231-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To identify and summarize the published and gray literature on the use of telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of inflammatory and/or autoimmune rheumatic disease. Methods: We performed a registered systematic search (CRD42015025382) for studies using MEDLINE (1946 to July 2015), Embase (1974 to July 2015), Web of Science (1900 to July 2015), and Scopus (1946 to July 2015) databases. We included studies that demonstrated the use of telemedicine for diagnosis and/or management of inflammatory/autoimmune rheumatic disease. Following data extraction, we performed a descriptive analysis. Results: Our literature search identified 1,468 potentially eligible studies. Of these studies, 20 were ultimately included in this review. Studies varied significantly in publication type, quality of evidence, and the reporting of methods. Most demonstrated a high risk of bias. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most commonly studied rheumatic disease (42% of patients). Studies demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of telemedicine (18 found it effective, 1 found it effective but possibly harmful, and 1 found it ineffective). A limited number of studies included some component of a cost analysis (n = 6; 16% of patients); all of these found telemedicine to be cost-effective. Conclusion: Studies identified by this systematic review generally found telemedicine to be effective for the diagnosis and management of autoimmune/inflammatory rheumatic disease; however, there is limited evidence to support this conclusion. Further studies are needed to determine the best uses of telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of these conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available