This study aims to examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favoured.

Systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review).

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Systematic reviews attempt to compare surgical to drug interventions.

We extracted whether the review found any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eligible comparisons. Individual trial results were extracted directly from the systematic review.

The outcomes of each meta-analysis were resynthesised into random-effects meta-analyses. Egger’s test and excess significance were assessed.

Overall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% CIs, the surgical intervention was favoured in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favoured in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority in our reanalysis (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favour of surgery and 2 (9%) were in favour of drugs. There was no evidence of excess significance.

Though the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomised evidence is rare. More randomised trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are needed.

Meta-analyses show postive effects of telemedicine in heart failure (HF) management on hospitalisation, mortality and costs. However, these effects are heterogeneous due to variation in the included HF population, the telemedicine components and the quality of the comparator usual care. Still, telemedicine is gaining acceptance in HF management. The current nationwide study aims to identify (1) in which subgroup(s) of patients with HF telemedicine is (cost-)effective and (2) which components of telemedicine are most (cost-)effective.

The RELEASE-HF (‘REsponsible roLl-out of E-heAlth through Systematic Evaluation – Heart Failure’) study is a multicentre, observational, registry-based cohort study that plans to enrol 6480 patients with HF using data from the HF registry facilitated by the Netherlands Heart Registration. Collected data include patient characteristics, treatment information and clinical outcomes, and are measured at HF diagnosis and at 6 and 12 months afterwards. The components of telemedicine are described at the hospital level based on closed-ended interviews with clinicians and at the patient level based on additional data extracted from electronic health records and telemedicine-generated data. The costs of telemedicine are calculated using registration data and interviews with clinicians and finance department staff. To overcome missing data, additional national databases will be linked to the HF registry if feasible. Heterogeneity of the effects of offering telemedicine compared with not offering on days alive without unplanned hospitalisations in 1 year is assessed across predefined patient characteristics using exploratory stratified analyses. The effects of telemedicine components are assessed by fitting separate models for component contrasts.

The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee 2021 of the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. Effective telemedicine scenarios will be proposed among hospitals throughout the country and abroad, if applicable and feasible.

NCT05654961.