Ref (type)	Population	Outcome, Interventions	Results and statistical analysis	Effect size	Favours
All-cause hospital re-admission
[15] Systematic review	7387 people 32 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for any cause with disease management programme with usual care Absolute results not reported	OR 0.76 95% CI 0.69 to 0.94 P <0.00001 RCTs of multidisciplinary treatment were generally small, involving highly selected patient populations (see further information on studies for more details)	Small effect size	disease management programme
[17] Systematic review	6569 people 21 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for any cause 1332/3331 (40%) with multidisciplinary programme 1442/3238 (45%) with control (not further defined)	RR 0.87 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95 P = 0.002 There was significant heterogeneity among RCTs (P = 0.04)	Small effect size	multidisciplinary programme
[19] Systematic review	2026 people 11 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for any cause 363/984 (37%) with pharmacist care 449/1042 (43%) with no pharmacist care	OR 0.71 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94	Small effect size	pharmacist care
[20] Systematic review	4122 people 11 RCTs in this analysis	All-cause hospital admissions 918/2137 (43%) with remote patient monitoring 901/1985 (45%) with usual care	RR 0.93 95% CI 0.87 to 0.99 P = 0.03	Small effect size	remote patient monitoring
[21] Systematic review	4295 people 11 RCTs in this analysis	All-cause hospital admissions 822/2140 (38%) with structured telephone support 888/2155 (41%) with usual care	RR 0.92 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99 P = 0.024	Small effect size	structured telephone support
[21] Systematic review	2343 people 8 RCTs in this analysis	All-cause hospital admissions 582/1232 (47%) with telemonitoring 579/1111 (52%) with usual care	RR 0.91 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99 P = 0.022	Small effect size	telemonitoring
Heart failure-specific hospital re-admission
[15] Systematic review	3817 people 20 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure-specific causes with disease management programme with usual care Absolute results not reported	OR 0.58 95% CI 0.50 to 0.67 P <0.00001 RCTs of multidisciplinary treatment were generally small, involving highly selected patient populations (see further information on studies for more details)	Small effect size	disease management programme
[17] Systematic review	Number of people in analysis not clear 16 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure-specific causes with multidisciplinary programme with control (not further defined) Absolute results not reported	RR 0.70 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81 P <0.0001 There was significant heterogeneity among RCTs (P = 0.04)	Small effect size	multidisciplinary programme
[18] Systematic review	3844 people 21 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure-specific causes with multidisciplinary programmes with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.41 95% CI 0.30 to 0.56	Moderate effect size	multidisciplinary programme
[18] Systematic review	Number of RCTs and people included in subgroup analysis not reported Subgroup analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure with programmes involving face-to-face contact with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.42 95% CI 0.22 to 0.81	Moderate effect size	programmes involving face-to-face contact
[18] Systematic review	Number of RCTs and people included in subgroup analysis not reported Subgroup analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure with programmes involving face-to-face contact plus telephone contact with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.37 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64	Moderate effect size	programmes involving face-to-face contact plus telephone contact
[18] Systematic review	Number of RCTs and people included in subgroup analysis not reported Subgroup analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure with programmes involving telephone (non face-to-face) management with control (predominantly usual care) Absolute results not reported	OR 0.67 95% CI 0.36 to 1.26		Not significant
[19] Systematic review	1977 people 11 RCTs in this analysis	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for heart failure 183/959 (19%) with pharmacist care 238/1018 (23%) with no pharmacist care	OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94	Small effect size	pharmacist care
[20] Systematic review	4310 people 13 RCTs in this analysis	Hospital admissions for heart failure 424/2231 (19%) with remote patient monitoring 546/2079 (26%) with usual care	RR 0.71 95% CI 0.64 to 0.80 P <0.001	Small effect size	remote patient monitoring
[21] Systematic review	4269 people 13 RCTs in this analysis	Hospital admissions for heart failure 346/2102 (16%) with structured telephone support 462/2167 (21%) with usual care	RR 0.77 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87 P = 0.00004	Small effect size	structured telephone support
[21] Systematic review	1570 people 4 RCTs in this analysis	Hospital admissions for heart failure 189/844 (22%) with telemonitoring 207/726 (28%) with usual care	RR 0.79 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94 P = 0.008	Small effect size	telemonitoring
[22] RCT 3-armed trial	1049 people hospitalised because of heart failure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV	Rate of composite outcome of all-cause mortality or hospital re-admission as a result of heart failure 18 months 132/344 (38%) with intensive disease management programme 141/339 (42%) with usual care	HR 0.93 (intensive disease management v usual care) 95% CI 0.73 to 1.17 The results from this large RCT do not correlate with the results of the 6 systematic reviews reported (see further information on studies for details)		Not significant
[22] RCT 3-armed trial	1049 people hospitalised because of heart failure, NYHA functional class II to IV	Proportion of people admitted to hospital for chronic heart failure 18 months 92/344 (27%) with intensive disease management programme 84/339 (25%) with usual care	Significance not assessed The results from this large RCT do not correlate with the results of the 6 systematic reviews reported (see further information on studies for details)
[23] RCT	1518 people attending outpatients for stable chronic heart failure with mainly NYHA class II to III symptoms	Hospital admission for heart failure up to 1 year after completion of the trial 174/760 (23%) with previous telephone monitoring 220/758 (29%) with previous usual care	RR 0.73 95% CI 0.60 to 0.90 P = 0.002	Small effect size	previous telephone monitoring
[23] RCT	1518 people attending outpatients for stable chronic heart failure with mainly NYHA class II to III symptoms	Hospital admission for heart failure up to 3 years after completion of the trial 217/760 (29%) with previous telephone monitoring 266/758 (35%) with previous usual care	RR 0.72 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87 P = 0.0004	Small effect size	previous telephone monitoring