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

Remote monitoring for heart failure has been evaluated in numerous systematic reviews. The aim of this meta-review was to appraise their quality and synthesise results. We electronically searched online databases, performed a forward citation search and hand-searched bibliographies. Systematic reviews of remote monitoring interventions that were used for surveillance of heart failure patients were included. 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. According to AMSTAR criteria, ten (58%) systematic reviews were of poor methodological quality. In high quality reviews, the relative risk of mortality in patients who received remote monitoring ranged from 0.53 (95% CI=0.29-0.96) to 0.88 (95% CI=0.76-1.01). High quality reviews also reported that remote monitoring reduced the relative risk of all-cause (0.52; 95% CI=0.28-0.96 to 0.96; 95% CI=0.90–1.03) and heart failure-related hospitalizations (0.72; 95% CI=0.64–0.81 to RR 0.79; 95% CI=0.67-0.94) and, as a consequence, healthcare costs. As the high quality reviews reported that remote monitoring reduced hospitalizations, mortality and healthcare costs, research efforts should now be directed towards optimising these interventions in preparation for more widespread implementation.