Zur Hauptnavigation wechseln Zur Suche wechseln Zum Hauptinhalt wechseln

Telemedicine in adult intensive care: A systematic review of patient-relevant outcomes and methodological considerations

Tamara Pscheidl, Carina Benstoem, Kelly Ansems, Lena Saal-Bauernschubert, Anne Ritter, Ana Mihaela Zorger, Karolina Dahms, Sandra Dohmen, Eva Steinfeld, Julia Dormann, Claire Iannizzi, Nicole Skoetz, Heidrun Janka, Maria Inti Metzendorf, Carla Nau, Miriam Stegemann, Patrick Meybohm, Falk von Dincklage, Sven Laudi, Falk FichtnerStephanie Weibel*

*Korrespondierende/r Autor/-in für diese Arbeit

Abstract

Given the growing challenges of healthcare, including an aging population and increasing shortages of specialized intensive care staff, this systematic review investigates the efficacy of telemedicine in intensive care compared to standard of care (SoC) or any other type or mode of telemedicine on patient-relevant outcomes for adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This systematic review follows Cochrane's methodological standards. Comprehensive searches for any controlled clinical studies were conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and CENTRAL (up to 18 April 2024, and an updated search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 29 September 2025). Twenty-six studies comparing telemedicine in intensive care to SoC with approximately 2,164,508 analysed patients were identified, including data from one cluster RCT (cRCT), two stepped-wedge cluster RCTs (sw-cRCTs), and 23 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs). No other comparisons were identified. Due to high clinical and methodological heterogeneity among studies, no meta-analysis was conducted. For ICU mortality, one cRCT (15,230 patients) and two sw-cRCTs (5,915 patients) showed heterogeneous results: two found no evidence for a difference, while one favoured SoC (very low-certainty). One sw-cRCT (1,462 patients) reporting overall mortality at 180 days suggested no evidence for a difference between groups (very low-certainty). Data from one cRCT (15,230 patients) and one sw-cRCT (1,462 patients) on ICU length of stay (LOS) showed no evidence for a difference between groups (moderate- and very low-certainty). Quality of life from one sw-cRCT (786 patients) indicated no evidence for a difference (very low-certainty). Six NRSIs reported adjusted data on ICU mortality, two on overall mortality, and three on ICU LOS, with heterogeneous results. High risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity limited the certainty, emphasizing the need for robust, patient-centered research in clinical studies to define telemedicine's role in intensive care and optimize its implementation. Future studies should particularly ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting.

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Aufsatznummere0001126
ZeitschriftPLOS Digital Health
Jahrgang4
Ausgabenummer12 December
DOIs
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 12.2025

Fördermittel

Funding: This systematic review is part of the project Universitäres Telemedizinnetzwerk (UTN) which is funded by Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) as part of the Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin 2.0 (NUM 2.0), No. 01KX2121 (No. 01KX2121 to SW, MSt, MIM, FF, NS, CB, CN, PM, FvD, SL). Although TP, LSB, AMZ, KA, HJ, AR, KD, SD, ES, JD, CI did not receive a grant personally, the position was funded through Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) as part of the Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin 2.0 (NUM 2.0), No. 01KX2121. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

TrägerTrägernummer
Bundesministerium für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt
Universitäres Telemedizinnetzwerk
Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin 2.0NUM 2.0, 01KX2121

    UN SDGs

    Dieser Output leistet einen Beitrag zu folgendem(n) Ziel(en) für nachhaltige Entwicklung

    1. SDG 3 – Gesundheit und Wohlergehen
      SDG 3 – Gesundheit und Wohlergehen

    Fingerprint

    Untersuchen Sie die Forschungsthemen von „Telemedicine in adult intensive care: A systematic review of patient-relevant outcomes and methodological considerations“. Zusammen bilden sie einen einzigartigen Fingerprint.

    Zitieren