ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2017
Time Gain Needed for In-Ambulance Telemedicine: Cost-Utility Model.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic & Implementation Determinants of Prehospital Stroke Triage Tools: A Systematic Review.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Virtual Emergency Care Models: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of improvement strategies for reperfusion treatments in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Telemedicine in Neurosurgery: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review of the Literature for the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.Neurosurgery · 2020Pooled it
- Feasibility and acceptability of pediatric expert teleconsultation during critical ambulance transports: a pilot randomized controlled simulation trial.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The cost-effectiveness of telestroke in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in China.Health economics review · 2026Article
- Direct stroke unit access versus a hub-and-spoke model with telemedicine-assisted CT in Germany: a cross-sectional geospatial analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Prehospital telemedicine support for urban stroke care: Analysis of current state of care and conceptualization.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Can drones save lives and money? An economic evaluation of airborne delivery of automated external defibrillators.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023Article
- Telemedical emergency services: central or decentral coordination?Health economics review · 2021Article
- The Experience of Using Video Support in Ambulance Care: An Interview Study with Physicians in the Role of Regional Medical Support.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Evaluation of a Rural Emergency Medical Service Project in Germany: Protocol for a Multimethod and Multiperspective Longitudinal Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke is a very time-sensitive pathology, and many new solutions target the optimization of prehospital stroke care to improve the stroke management process. In-ambulance telemedicine, defined by live bidirectional audio-video between a patient and a neurologist in a moving ambulance and the automated transfer of vital parameters, is a promising new approach to speed up and improve the quality of acute stroke care. Currently, no evidence exists on the cost effectiveness of in-ambulance telemedicine.
objectiveWe aim to develop a first cost effectiveness model for in-ambulance telemedicine and use this model to estimate the time savings needed before in-ambulance telemedicine becomes cost effective.
methodsCurrent standard stroke care is compared with current standard stroke care supplemented with in-ambulance telemedicine using a cost-utility model measuring costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a health care perspective. We combine a decision tree with a Markov model. Data from the UZ Brussel Stroke Registry (2282 stroke patients) and linked hospital claims data at individual level are combined with literature data to populate the model. A 2-way sensitivity analysis varying both implementation costs and time gain is performed to map the different cost-effective combinations and identify the time gain needed for cost effectiveness and dominance. For several modeled time gains, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve is calculated and mapped in 1 figure.
resultsUnder the base-case scenario (implementation cost of US $159,425) and taking a lifetime horizon into account, in-ambulance telemedicine is a cost-effective strategy compared to standard stroke care alone starting from a time gain of 6 minutes. After 12 minutes, in-ambulance telemedicine becomes dominant, and this results in a mean decrease of costs by US -$30 (95% CI -$32 to -$29) per patient with 0.00456 (95% CI 0.00448 to 0.00463) QALYs on average gained per patient. In over 82% of all probabilistic simulations, in-ambulance telemedicine remains under the cost-effectiveness threshold of US $47,747.
conclusionsOur model suggests that in-ambulance telemedicine can be cost effective starting from a time gain of 6 minutes and becomes a dominant strategy after approximately 15 minutes. This indicates that in-ambulance telemedicine has the potential to become a cost-effective intervention assuming time gains in clinical implementations are realized in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.