Hersh W R, Helfand M, Wallace J, Kraemer D, Patterson P, Shapiro S, Greenlick M
Division of Medical Informatics & Outcomes Research, Oregon Health & Science University, BICC, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97201, USA.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:5. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-1-5. Epub 2001 Nov 26.
The use of telemedicine is growing, but its efficacy for achieving comparable or improved clinical outcomes has not been established in many medical specialties. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of telemedicine interventions for health outcomes in two classes of application: home-based and office/hospital-based.
Data sources for the study included deports of studies from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and HealthSTAR databases; searching of bibliographies of review and other articles; and consultation of printed resources as well as investigators in the field. We included studies that were relevant to at least one of the two classes of telemedicine and addressed the assessment of efficacy for clinical outcomes with data of reported results. We excluded studies where the service did not historically require face-to-face encounters (e.g., radiology or pathology diagnosis). All included articles were abstracted and graded for quality and direction of the evidence.
A total of 25 articles met inclusion criteria and were assessed. The strongest evidence for the efficacy of telemedicine in clinical outcomes comes from home-based telemedicine in the areas of chronic disease management, hypertension, and AIDS. The value of home glucose monitoring in diabetes mellitus is conflicting. There is also reasonable evidence that telemedicine is comparable to face-to-face care in emergency medicine and is beneficial in surgical and neonatal intensive care units as well as patient transfer in neurosurgery.
Despite the widespread use of telemedicine in virtually all major areas of health care, evidence concerning the benefits of its use exists in only a small number of them. Further randomized controlled trials must be done to determine where its use is most effective.
远程医疗的应用正在不断增加,但在许多医学专科中,其实现可比或改善临床结果的疗效尚未得到证实。本系统评价的目的是评估远程医疗干预在两类应用中的健康结局疗效:家庭式和办公室/医院式。
该研究的数据来源包括MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和HealthSTAR数据库中的研究报告;检索综述和其他文章的参考文献;查阅印刷资源以及咨询该领域的研究人员。我们纳入了与两类远程医疗中的至少一类相关且通过报告结果的数据对临床结局疗效进行评估的研究。我们排除了那些历史上不需要面对面会诊的服务(如放射学或病理学诊断)的研究。所有纳入的文章都进行了摘要,并根据证据的质量和方向进行了分级。
共有25篇文章符合纳入标准并进行了评估。远程医疗在临床结局方面疗效的最有力证据来自慢性病管理、高血压和艾滋病领域的家庭式远程医疗。家庭血糖监测在糖尿病中的价值存在争议。也有合理的证据表明,远程医疗在急诊医学中与面对面护理相当,并且在外科和新生儿重症监护病房以及神经外科患者转运中有益。
尽管远程医疗在几乎所有主要医疗保健领域都得到了广泛应用,但关于其使用益处的证据仅存在于少数领域。必须进行进一步的随机对照试验,以确定其最有效的使用地点。