Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12855528›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003

Virtual outreach: economic evaluation of joint teleconsultations for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion.

P B Jacklin, J A Roberts, P Wallace, A Haines, R Harrison, J A Barber, S G Thompson, L Lewis, R Currell, S Parker and 2 more

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pilot trial of telemedicine in urology: Video vs. telephone consultations.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
  14. Good Comes From Evil: COVID-19 and the Advent of Telemedicine in Orthopedics.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

P B JacklinDepartment of Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1 7HT. paul.jacklin@lshtm.ac.uk
J A Roberts
P Wallace
A Haines
R Harrison
J A Barber
S G Thompson
L Lewis
R Currell
S Parker
P Wainwright
Virtual Outreach Project Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo test the hypotheses that, compared with conventional outpatient consultations, joint teleconsultation (virtual outreach) would incur no increased costs to the NHS, reduce costs to patients, and reduce absences from work by patients and their carers.

designCost consequences study alongside randomised controlled trial.

settingTwo hospitals in London and Shrewsbury and 29 general practices in inner London and Wales.

participants3170 patients identified; 2094 eligible for inclusion and willing to participate. 1051 randomised to virtual outreach and 1043 to standard outpatient appointments.

main outcome measuresNHS costs, patient costs, health status (SF-12), time spent attending index consultation, patient satisfaction.

resultsOverall six months costs were greater for the virtual outreach consultations ( pound 724 per patient) than for conventional outpatient appointments ( pound 625): difference in means pound 99 ($162; 138) (95% confidence interval pound 10 to pound 187, P=0.03). If the analysis is restricted to resource items deemed "attributable" to the index consultation, six month costs were still greater for virtual outreach: difference in means pound 108 ( pound 73 to pound 142, P < 0.0001). In both analyses the index consultation accounted for the excess cost. Savings to patients in terms of costs and time occurred in both centres: difference in mean total patient cost pound 8 ( pound 5 to pound 10, P < 0.0001). Loss of productive time was less in the virtual outreach group: difference in mean cost pound 11 ( pound 10 to pound 12, P < 0.0001).

conclusionThe main hypothesis that virtual outreach would be cost neutral is rejected, but the hypotheses that costs to patients and losses in productivity would be lower are supported.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessEnglandFamily PracticeHealth Care CostsHealth Services ResearchHospitals, PublicHumansPatient SatisfactionProgram EvaluationReferral and ConsultationRemote ConsultationState MedicineWales

Identifiers

PMID12855528
PMCPMC164917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.