Clinical Relevance of Home Monitoring of Vital Signs and Blood Glucose Levels: A Narrative Review
We sought to assess the presence and reporting quality of peer-reviewed literature concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies for vital signs and glucose determinations in older adult populations. A narrative literature review was undertaken searching the dat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of technology assessment in health care 2019, Vol.35 (4), p.334-339 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 339 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 334 |
container_title | International journal of technology assessment in health care |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Lee, Jessica P. Freeman, Georgina Cheng, Michelle Brown, Lauren De la Hoz Siegler, Hector Conly, John |
description | We sought to assess the presence and reporting quality of peer-reviewed literature concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies for vital signs and glucose determinations in older adult populations.
A narrative literature review was undertaken searching the databases Medline, Embase, and Compendex. Peer-reviewed publications with keywords related to vital signs, monitoring devices and technologies, independent living, and older adults were searched. Publications between the years 2012 and 2018 were included. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening, and four reviewers independently undertook full-text screening and data extraction with all disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus.
Two hundred nine articles were included. Our review showed limited assessment and low-quality reporting of evidence concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies. Of 209 articles describing a relevant device, only 45 percent (n = 95) provided a citation or some evidence to support their validation claim. Of forty-eight articles that described the use of a comparator device, 65 percent (n = 31) used low-quality statistical methods, 23 percent (n = 11) used moderate-quality statistical methods, and only 12 percent (n = 6) used high-quality statistical methods.
Our review found that current validity claims were based on low-quality assessments that do not provide the necessary confidence needed by clinicians for medical decision-making purposes. This narrative review highlights the need for standardized health technology reporting to increase health practitioner confidence in these devices, support the appropriate adoption of such devices within the healthcare system, and improve health outcomes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266462319000527 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2265760973</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266462319000527</cupid><sourcerecordid>2277407678</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-95a7c112252dbefcc1f143afb7430e9f414af6d546c3ea25f185a38b9eaac15b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1v1DAQhq0KRLeFH8AFWeLCJcVjO_amt3ZFP6QFJApcI8cZr1w5cWsni_j39apLK4E4jTTzzDOjl5C3wE6Agf54w7hSUnEBDWOs5vqALEBqqJSQyxdksRtXu_khOcr5ljEQrGGvyKEAIQveLIhZBT96awL9hgG3ZrRIo6NXcUD6OY5-ismPm13rp58KdeM3Y6Zm7Ol5iLGnl2G2MSNd4xZDPqVn9ItJyUx-i8W49fjrNXnpTMj4Zl-PyY-LT99XV9X66-X16mxdWQlqqpraaAvAec37Dp214EAK4zotBcPGSZDGqb6Wygo0vHawrI1Ydg0aY6HuxDH58Oi9S_F-xjy1g88WQzAjxjm3nKtaK9ZoUdD3f6G3cU5j-a5QWkumlV4WCh4pm2LOCV17l_xg0u8WWLvLv_0n_7Lzbm-euwH7p40_gRdA7KVm6JLvN_h8-__aB2emjgc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2277407678</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical Relevance of Home Monitoring of Vital Signs and Blood Glucose Levels: A Narrative Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Lee, Jessica P. ; Freeman, Georgina ; Cheng, Michelle ; Brown, Lauren ; De la Hoz Siegler, Hector ; Conly, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jessica P. ; Freeman, Georgina ; Cheng, Michelle ; Brown, Lauren ; De la Hoz Siegler, Hector ; Conly, John</creatorcontrib><description>We sought to assess the presence and reporting quality of peer-reviewed literature concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies for vital signs and glucose determinations in older adult populations.
A narrative literature review was undertaken searching the databases Medline, Embase, and Compendex. Peer-reviewed publications with keywords related to vital signs, monitoring devices and technologies, independent living, and older adults were searched. Publications between the years 2012 and 2018 were included. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening, and four reviewers independently undertook full-text screening and data extraction with all disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus.
Two hundred nine articles were included. Our review showed limited assessment and low-quality reporting of evidence concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies. Of 209 articles describing a relevant device, only 45 percent (n = 95) provided a citation or some evidence to support their validation claim. Of forty-eight articles that described the use of a comparator device, 65 percent (n = 31) used low-quality statistical methods, 23 percent (n = 11) used moderate-quality statistical methods, and only 12 percent (n = 6) used high-quality statistical methods.
Our review found that current validity claims were based on low-quality assessments that do not provide the necessary confidence needed by clinicians for medical decision-making purposes. This narrative review highlights the need for standardized health technology reporting to increase health practitioner confidence in these devices, support the appropriate adoption of such devices within the healthcare system, and improve health outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462319000527</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31345279</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Adults ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aging in place ; Assessment ; Bibliographic data bases ; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring - standards ; Blood pressure ; Citations ; Clinical decision making ; Collaboration ; Confidence ; Data Accuracy ; Decision making ; Documents ; Glucose ; Health ; Humans ; Literature reviews ; Long term health care ; Medical practices ; Metabolism ; Middle Aged ; Monitoring ; Monitoring, Ambulatory - methods ; Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards ; Nursing homes ; Older people ; Population ; Quality assessment ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Reviews ; Screening ; Statistical methods ; Statistics ; Systematic review ; Validity ; Vital Signs</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2019, Vol.35 (4), p.334-339</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019</rights><rights>2019 This article is published under (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-95a7c112252dbefcc1f143afb7430e9f414af6d546c3ea25f185a38b9eaac15b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-95a7c112252dbefcc1f143afb7430e9f414af6d546c3ea25f185a38b9eaac15b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462319000527/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31345279$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jessica P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freeman, Georgina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Michelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Lauren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De la Hoz Siegler, Hector</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conly, John</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical Relevance of Home Monitoring of Vital Signs and Blood Glucose Levels: A Narrative Review</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>We sought to assess the presence and reporting quality of peer-reviewed literature concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies for vital signs and glucose determinations in older adult populations.
A narrative literature review was undertaken searching the databases Medline, Embase, and Compendex. Peer-reviewed publications with keywords related to vital signs, monitoring devices and technologies, independent living, and older adults were searched. Publications between the years 2012 and 2018 were included. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening, and four reviewers independently undertook full-text screening and data extraction with all disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus.
Two hundred nine articles were included. Our review showed limited assessment and low-quality reporting of evidence concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies. Of 209 articles describing a relevant device, only 45 percent (n = 95) provided a citation or some evidence to support their validation claim. Of forty-eight articles that described the use of a comparator device, 65 percent (n = 31) used low-quality statistical methods, 23 percent (n = 11) used moderate-quality statistical methods, and only 12 percent (n = 6) used high-quality statistical methods.
Our review found that current validity claims were based on low-quality assessments that do not provide the necessary confidence needed by clinicians for medical decision-making purposes. This narrative review highlights the need for standardized health technology reporting to increase health practitioner confidence in these devices, support the appropriate adoption of such devices within the healthcare system, and improve health outcomes.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adults</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Aging in place</subject><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Bibliographic data bases</subject><subject>Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring - standards</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Citations</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>Data Accuracy</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Documents</subject><subject>Glucose</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Long term health care</subject><subject>Medical practices</subject><subject>Metabolism</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Monitoring, Ambulatory - methods</subject><subject>Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards</subject><subject>Nursing homes</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Screening</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Vital Signs</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>IKXGN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1v1DAQhq0KRLeFH8AFWeLCJcVjO_amt3ZFP6QFJApcI8cZr1w5cWsni_j39apLK4E4jTTzzDOjl5C3wE6Agf54w7hSUnEBDWOs5vqALEBqqJSQyxdksRtXu_khOcr5ljEQrGGvyKEAIQveLIhZBT96awL9hgG3ZrRIo6NXcUD6OY5-ismPm13rp58KdeM3Y6Zm7Ol5iLGnl2G2MSNd4xZDPqVn9ItJyUx-i8W49fjrNXnpTMj4Zl-PyY-LT99XV9X66-X16mxdWQlqqpraaAvAec37Dp214EAK4zotBcPGSZDGqb6Wygo0vHawrI1Ydg0aY6HuxDH58Oi9S_F-xjy1g88WQzAjxjm3nKtaK9ZoUdD3f6G3cU5j-a5QWkumlV4WCh4pm2LOCV17l_xg0u8WWLvLv_0n_7Lzbm-euwH7p40_gRdA7KVm6JLvN_h8-__aB2emjgc</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Lee, Jessica P.</creator><creator>Freeman, Georgina</creator><creator>Cheng, Michelle</creator><creator>Brown, Lauren</creator><creator>De la Hoz Siegler, Hector</creator><creator>Conly, John</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>Clinical Relevance of Home Monitoring of Vital Signs and Blood Glucose Levels: A Narrative Review</title><author>Lee, Jessica P. ; Freeman, Georgina ; Cheng, Michelle ; Brown, Lauren ; De la Hoz Siegler, Hector ; Conly, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c416t-95a7c112252dbefcc1f143afb7430e9f414af6d546c3ea25f185a38b9eaac15b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adults</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Aging in place</topic><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Bibliographic data bases</topic><topic>Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring - standards</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Citations</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>Data Accuracy</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Documents</topic><topic>Glucose</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Long term health care</topic><topic>Medical practices</topic><topic>Metabolism</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Monitoring, Ambulatory - methods</topic><topic>Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards</topic><topic>Nursing homes</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Screening</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Vital Signs</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jessica P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freeman, Georgina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Michelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Lauren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De la Hoz Siegler, Hector</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conly, John</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lee, Jessica P.</au><au>Freeman, Georgina</au><au>Cheng, Michelle</au><au>Brown, Lauren</au><au>De la Hoz Siegler, Hector</au><au>Conly, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical Relevance of Home Monitoring of Vital Signs and Blood Glucose Levels: A Narrative Review</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>334</spage><epage>339</epage><pages>334-339</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>We sought to assess the presence and reporting quality of peer-reviewed literature concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies for vital signs and glucose determinations in older adult populations.
A narrative literature review was undertaken searching the databases Medline, Embase, and Compendex. Peer-reviewed publications with keywords related to vital signs, monitoring devices and technologies, independent living, and older adults were searched. Publications between the years 2012 and 2018 were included. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening, and four reviewers independently undertook full-text screening and data extraction with all disagreements resolved through discussion and consensus.
Two hundred nine articles were included. Our review showed limited assessment and low-quality reporting of evidence concerning the accuracy, precision, and reliability of home monitoring technologies. Of 209 articles describing a relevant device, only 45 percent (n = 95) provided a citation or some evidence to support their validation claim. Of forty-eight articles that described the use of a comparator device, 65 percent (n = 31) used low-quality statistical methods, 23 percent (n = 11) used moderate-quality statistical methods, and only 12 percent (n = 6) used high-quality statistical methods.
Our review found that current validity claims were based on low-quality assessments that do not provide the necessary confidence needed by clinicians for medical decision-making purposes. This narrative review highlights the need for standardized health technology reporting to increase health practitioner confidence in these devices, support the appropriate adoption of such devices within the healthcare system, and improve health outcomes.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>31345279</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0266462319000527</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4623 |
ispartof | International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2019, Vol.35 (4), p.334-339 |
issn | 0266-4623 1471-6348 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2265760973 |
source | MEDLINE; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Accuracy Adults Aged Aged, 80 and over Aging in place Assessment Bibliographic data bases Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring - standards Blood pressure Citations Clinical decision making Collaboration Confidence Data Accuracy Decision making Documents Glucose Health Humans Literature reviews Long term health care Medical practices Metabolism Middle Aged Monitoring Monitoring, Ambulatory - methods Monitoring, Ambulatory - standards Nursing homes Older people Population Quality assessment Reliability Reproducibility of Results Reviews Screening Statistical methods Statistics Systematic review Validity Vital Signs |
title | Clinical Relevance of Home Monitoring of Vital Signs and Blood Glucose Levels: A Narrative Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T13%3A17%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20Relevance%20of%20Home%20Monitoring%20of%20Vital%20Signs%20and%20Blood%20Glucose%20Levels:%20A%20Narrative%20Review&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Lee,%20Jessica%20P.&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=334&rft.epage=339&rft.pages=334-339&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462319000527&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2277407678%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2277407678&rft_id=info:pmid/31345279&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266462319000527&rfr_iscdi=true |