Background
Methods
Design and study population
The TIS group (group 1)
The CS group (group 2)
Telemonitoring system
Assessment of variables
Clinical efficacy and radiographic progression
Patient’s acceptance of telemonitoring system
Statistical analysis
Results
Study cohort
TIS group n = 21 | CS group n = 20 |
P
| |
---|---|---|---|
Age, mean ± s.d., years | 49.3 ± 15.2 | 50.3 ± 16.3 | n.s. |
Women, n (%) | 16 (76.2) | 15 (75.0) | n.s. |
Symptom duration, mean ± s.d., months | 5.9 ± 2.5 | 6.3 ± 4.1 | n.s. |
IgM RF positive, n (%) | 15 (71.4) | 16 (80.0) | n.s. |
ACPAs positive, n (%) | 11 (52.4) | 12 (60.0) | n.s. |
Patient assessment of disease activity (NRS 0–10), mean ± s.d. | 6.4 ± 1.3 | 6.0 ± 1,7 | n.s. |
Physician assessment of disease activity (NRS 0–10), mean ± s.d. | 6.1 ± 1.6 | 5.7 ± 2.1 | n.s. |
Tender joint count (0–28), mean ± s.d. | 9.0 ± 4.4 | 7.9 ± 3.1 | n.s. |
Swollen joint count (0–28), mean ± s.d. | 5.5 ± 3.3 | 4.9 ± 2.5 | n.s. |
ESR, mean ± s.d. | 36.1 ± 22.8 | 35.9 ± 20. | n.s. |
CRP, mean ± s.d., mg/l | 32.0 ± 33.4 | 28.7 ± 26.0 | n.s. |
CDAI score, 0–76 scale, mean ± s.d. | 27.2 ± 3.6 | 24.3 ± 8.0 | n.s. |
RAID, score, 0–10 scale, mean ± s.d. | 7.5 ± 0.9 | 6.4 ± 2.5 | n.s. |
ROAD score, 0–10 scale, mean ± s.d. | 4.9 ± 2.14 | 4.5 ± 2.4 | n.s. |
Total Sharp Score, 0–448 scale, mean ± s.d. | 9.4 ± 4.79 | 10.8 ± 5.6 | n.s. |
Clinical outcomes
Area under curve | |||||
Group | Mean | 95 % CI | SD | Median | 95 % CI |
TIS | 145.22 | 131.90 to 158.53 | 29.25 | 142.24 | 124.86 to 164.23 |
CS | 180.23 | 162.15 to 198.31 | 38.62 | 192.24 | 159.02 to 209.15 |
Average rank of first group | 15.66 | ||||
Average rank of second group | 26.60 | ||||
Mann–Whitney U | 98.00 | ||||
Large sample test statistic Z | 2.92 | ||||
Two-tailed probability | P = 0.003 | ||||
Percentage difference last-first | |||||
Group | Mean | 95 % CI | SD | Median | 95 % CI |
TIS | −73.76 | −81.41 to −66.10 | 16.81 | −66.90 | −90.09 to −62.62 |
CS | −57.33 | −68.49 to −46.18 | 23.83 | −57.43 | −67.56 to −43.37 |
Average rank of first group | 16.33 | ||||
Average rank of second group | 25.90 | ||||
Mann–Whitney U | 112.00 | ||||
Large sample test statistic Z | 2.55 | ||||
Two-tailed probability | P = 0.011 |
CDAI response category | TIS (n = 21) | CS (n = 20) |
P
|
---|---|---|---|
No response, n° (%) | 2 (9.6) | 8 (40) | <0.001 |
CDAI 50, n (%) | 9 (42.8) | 7 (35) | <0.01 |
CDAI 70, n (%) | 1 (4.8) | 0 | n.v. |
CDAI 85, n (%) | 9 (42.8) | 5 (25) | <0.001 |
Radiographic evaluation of joint damage
Patients meeting all criteria for CDC at 1 year
Patients’ satisfaction with the technological device
Questions | Average | S.D. |
---|---|---|
a) The automated telemonitoring system is easy to use | 4.3 | 0.9 |
b) The automated telemonitoring system is easy to understand | 4.4 | 1.1 |
c) The information in the telemonitoring system meets my personal needs | 4.0 | 0.8 |
d) I find the information in the telemonitoring system useful for managing my own care | 4.1 | 0.9 |
e) In general, I am satisfied with my use of the automated telemonitoring system | 4.6 | 1.0 |