Taking both of these limitations into account it was considered that the results from this economic evaluation suggesting that usual care had a 0% probability of being cost effective were unlikely to be true for current UK practice. Overall, the committee considered that there was too much uncertainty to determine whether STS and TM would be cost effective in current clinical practice. Other considerations The previous guideline (CG108) included studies where the intervention arm involved visits to the participant s home by a healthcare professional. The committee felt as though this input was likely to confound results from these studies and wasn t truly representative of remote monitoring, therefore they were excluded in the update of this evidence review. The committee discussed the research recommendation made in CG85 and concluded that a significant body of evidence had accumulated since the publication of the guideline. The committee agreed that due to the rapidly advancing nature of technology within the field, and the lack of any plateau in terms of the technology available to clinicians, made it difficult to future proof any further research recommendations. The committee agreed that until a level of consensus was reached between manufacturers regarding what physiological parameters are to be measured and with what interface, it was very difficult to suggest any further research in the area The committee therefore decided not to make a further research recommendation. The committee discussed current practice regarding TM and STS and agreed that this was subject to variation across the country. It was acknowledged that although many general practices may have access to the equipment it was not widely implemented due to a lack of infrastructure to support its use. 