Chen L, Cheng L, Gao W, Chen D, Wang C, Ran X, et al.
JMIR mHealth and uHealth. Date of publication 2020 Jun 25;volume 8(6):e15574.
1. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 25;8(6):e15574. doi: 10.2196/15574.
Telemedicine in Chronic Wound Management: Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis.
Chen L(1), Cheng L(2)(3), Gao W(1), Chen D(1), Wang C(1), Ran X(1).
Author information:
(1)Diabetic Foot Care Center, Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West
China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
(2)Department of Clinical Laboratory, Nuclear Industry 416 Hospital, the 2nd
Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China.
(3)School of Clinical Medicine, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds have been a great burden to patients and the health
care system. The popularity of the internet and smart devices, such as mobile
phones and tablets, has made it possible to adopt telemedicine (TM) to improve
the management of chronic wounds. However, studies conducted by different
researchers have reported contradictory results on the effect of TM on chronic
wound management.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TM in
chronic wound management.
METHODS: We systematically searched multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE,
EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]) to identify
eligible studies published from inception to June 12, 2019. Inclusion criteria
were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and interventional cohort studies that
investigated the use of TM in chronic wound management. RCT and observational
data were analyzed separately. A meta-analysis and qualitative analysis were
conducted to estimate endpoints.
RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs and 6 cohort studies including 3913 patients were
included. Of these, 4 studies used tablets or mobile phones programmed with apps,
such as Skype and specialized interactive systems, whereas the remaining 8
studies used email, telephone, and videoconferencing to facilitate the
implementation of TM using a specialized system. Efficacy outcomes in RCTs showed
no significant differences in wound healing (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% CI
0.96-1.39; P=.13), and wound healing around 1 year (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI
0.89-1.23; P=.15). Noninferiority criteria of TM were met. A decreased risk of
amputation in patients receiving TM was revealed (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.71;
P=.001). The result of cohort studies showed that TM was more effective than
standard care (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.43-2.12; P<.001), whereas the outcome efficacy
RR of wound healing around 1 year (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96-1.53; P=.56) and 3 months
(RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.47-3.3; P=.67) was not significantly different between TM and
standard care. Noninferiority criteria of TM were met for wound healing around 1
year in cohort studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests that TM seems to have similar
efficacy and safety, and met noninferiority criteria with conventional standard
care of chronic wounds. Large-scale, well-designed RCTs are warranted.
©Lihong Chen, Lihui Cheng, Wei Gao, Dawei Chen, Chun Wang, Xingwu Ran. Originally
published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 25.06.2020.
DOI: 10.2196/15574
PMCID: PMC7381084
PMID: 32584259
