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

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.