Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28673333›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2017

Telephone consultations for general practice: a systematic review.

Martin J Downes, Merehau C Mervin, Joshua M Byrnes, Paul A Scuffham

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Patient Satisfaction with Telemedicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Sinus and anterior skull base surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic review, synthesis and YO-IFOS position.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin J DownesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan Campus - N78 1.11, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia. m.downes@epinet.net.
Merehau C MervinCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan Campus - N78 1.11, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
Joshua M ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan Campus - N78 1.11, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
Paul A ScuffhamCentre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Griffith University, Nathan Campus - N78 1.11, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
Griffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of information technology, including internet- and telephone-based resources, is becoming an alternative and supporting method of providing many forms of services in a healthcare and health management setting. Telephone consultations provide a promising alternative and supporting service for face-to-face general practice care. The aim of this review is to utilize a systematic review to collate evidence on the use of telephone consultation as an alternative to face-to-face general practice visits.

methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed using the search terms for the intervention (telephone consultation) and the comparator (general practice). Systematic reviews and randomized control trials that examined telephone consultation compared to normal face-to-face consultation in general practice were included in this review. Papers were reviewed, assessed for quality (Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool) and data extracted and analysed.

resultsTwo systematic reviews and one RCT were identified and included in the analysis. The RCT (N = 388) was of patients requesting same-day appointments from two general practices and patients were randomized to a same-day face-to-face appointment or a telephone call back consultation. There was a reduction in the time spent on consultations in the telephone group (1.5 min (0.6 to 2.4)) and patients in the telephone arm had 0.2 (0 to 0.3) more follow-up consultations than the face-to-face group. One systematic review focused on telephone consultation and triage on healthcare use, and included one RCT and one other observational study that examined telephone consultations. The other systematic review focused on patient access and included one RCT and four observational studies that examined telephone consultations. Both systematic reviews provided narrative interpretations of the evidence and concluded that telephone consultations provided an appropriate alternative to telephone consultations and reduced practice work load.

conclusionThere is a lack of high level evidence for telephone consultations in a GP setting; however, current evidence suggests that telephone consultations as an alternative to face-to-face general practice consultations offers an appropriate option in certain settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015025225.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareReferral and ConsultationGeneral PracticeHumansTelemedicineTelephoneGeneral practiceTeleconsultTelehealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID28673333
PMCPMC5496327
OpenAlexW2724969778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.