Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30286648›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2019

A prospective clinical, cost and environmental analysis of a clinician-led virtual urology clinic.

S Miah, C Dunford, M Edison, D Eldred-Evans, C Gan, T T Shah, P Lunn, M Winkler, H U Ahmed, N Gibbons and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

11 authors.

S MiahDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
C DunfordDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
M EdisonDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
D Eldred-EvansDivision of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London , London , UK.
C GanDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
T T ShahDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
P LunnDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
M WinklerDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
H U AhmedDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
N GibbonsDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.
D HroudaDepartment of Urology, Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Charing Cross Hospital , London , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA virtual clinic is a form of telemedicine where contact between clinical teams and patients occur without face-to-face consultation. Our study aims to quantify the clinical, financial and environmental benefits of our virtual urology clinic. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe collected data prospectively from our weekly follow-up virtual clinic over a continuous four-month period between July and September 2017.

resultsIn total, we reviewed 409 patients. Following virtual clinic consultation, 68.5% of our patients were discharged from further follow-up. The majority of our patients (male 57.7%, female 55.5%) were of working age. The satisfaction scores were high, at 90.1%, and there were no reported adverse events as a result of using the virtual clinic. Our calculated cost savings were £18,744, with a predicted 12-month cost saving of £56,232. The creation of additional face-to-face clinic capacity has created an estimated 12-month increase in tariff generation for our unit of £72,072. In total, 4623 travel miles were avoided by patients using the virtual clinic, with an estimated avoided carbon footprint of 0.35-1.45 metric tonnes of CO

conclusionsOur virtual clinic model has demonstrated a trifecta of positive outcomes, namely, clinical, financial and environmental benefits. The environmental importance and benefits of a virtual clinic should be promoted as a social enterprise value when engaging stakeholders in setting up such a urological service. We propose the adoption of our virtual clinic model in those urological units considering this method of telemedicine.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsRemote ConsultationCost SavingsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProspective StudiesUrologic DiseasesCarbon footprintEnvironmentTelemedicineUrology virtual clinic

Identifiers

PMID30286648
PMCPMC6303818

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.