The review question and inclusion criteria were clear. The search covered a wide range of sources, although unpublished studies were not sought so publication bias was possible. Search terms were not reported so the quality of the search was unclear. Measures were taken to reduce risks of errors and bias affecting the review process. Relevant details of included studies were reported. Study quality was assessed and showed that most studies were at high risk of bias. Most studies did not report a power calculation and so may have been too small to detect differences between telemonitoring and usual care.
A narrative synthesis was appropriate in view of the differences between the included studies, although the vote-counting approach used did not take account of differences in study quality. The authors noted that four of the included studies included an educational component which could have accounted for some of the effects attributed to telemonitoring.
This was a generally well-conducted review. The authors' conclusions reflect the limitations of the evidence presented and seem reliable.