title: Results of a meta-analysis of cost-benefit research: is this a question worth asking?
abstract: We attempted a meta-analysis of telemedicine research studies of the costs associated with telemedicine. First, we performed a search of six well known databases with a variety of relevant keywords. After discarding non-English publications, books and duplicate publications resulting from the same study, we were left with 551 articles for analysis. Our second step was to separate the articles into two groups: those with and those without quantitative cost data. Only 38 articles contained any type of real data. Because many of these 38 studies proved to be inadequately designed or conducted, we were unable to perform a traditional meta-analysis. Furthermore, there were a number of disturbing features common to these studies, including the omission of the number of consultations or patients, almost non-existent longitudinal data collection and lack of uniformity in cost analyses. We conclude that it is premature for any statements to be made, either positive or negative, regarding the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in general.
authors.affiliation: Michigan State University, Department of Telecommunication, East Lansing 48824-1212, USA. pwhitten@msu.edu
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Whitten
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Kingsley
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Grigsby
mesh_terms: D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000592:standards*; D003625:Data Collection / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D017216:Telemedicine / Q000191:economics*