Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26025497›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2015

Telemedicine in Surgery: What are the Opportunities and Hurdles to Realising the Potential?

Nicholas Raison, Muhammad Shamim Khan, Ben Challacombe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Feasibility of telesurgery in the modern era.The neuroradiology journal · 2022
    Article
  20. Telemedicine Applications in the Era of COVID-19: Telesurgery Issues.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicholas RaisonUrology Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, nicholas.Raison@gstt.nhs.uk.
Muhammad Shamim Khan
Ben Challacombe
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the first telegraphic transmission of an electrocardiogram in 1906, technological developments have allowed telemedicine to flourish. It has become a multi-billion pound industry encompassing many areas of medical practice and education. Telemedicine is now widely used in surgery from performing operations to teaching and can be divided into three main components; telesurgery, telementoring and teleconsultation. Developments across these fields have led to remarkable achievements such as intercontinental telesurgery and telementoring. However, barriers to the further implementation of telemedicine remain. In this review, the developments and recent advances of telemedicine across the three domains are discussed together with the challenges and limitations that need to be overcome.

Indexed as

TelemedicineHumansReferral and ConsultationUrologic Diseases

Identifiers

PMID26025497
OpenAlexW401609452

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.