Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30365544›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2018

Effectiveness and efficiency of tele-expertise for improving access to retinopathy screening among 351 neonates in a secondary care center: An observational, controlled before-after study.

Marie Moitry, Kevin Zarca, Michèle Granier, Marie-Stéphanie Aubelle, Nathanaël Charrier, Brigitte Vacherot, Georges Caputo, Maroua Mimouni, Pierre-Henri Jarreau, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Telemedicine for Retinopathy of Prematurity.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2020
    Review
  5. Practice Guidelines for Ocular Telehealth-Diabetic Retinopathy, Third Edition.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2020
    Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Marie MoitryLaboratoire d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5196-8351
Kevin ZarcaAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, DRCD-URC Eco Ile-de-France (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Michèle GranierService de réanimation néonatale, Hôpitaux Sud Francilien, Evry, France.
Marie-Stéphanie AubelleService de Médecine et Réanimation Néonatales de Port-Royal, Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.
Nathanaël CharrierUSRC, Centre Hospitalier René Dubos, Pontoise, France.
Brigitte VacherotService de Médecine et Réanimation Néonatales de Port-Royal, Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.
Georges CaputoService d'ophtalmologie pédiatrique, Fondation Rothschild, Paris, France.
Maroua MimouniAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, DRCD-URC Eco Ile-de-France (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Pierre-Henri JarreauService de Médecine et Réanimation Néonatales de Port-Royal, Assistance Publique, Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France.
Isabelle Durand-ZaleskiAssistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, DRCD-URC Eco Ile-de-France (AP-HP), Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In France, secondary care hospitals encounter difficulties to adhere to retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening guidelines. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of a tele-expertise program for ROP screening in neonatal intensive care units without on-site ophthalmologists. We evaluated the impact of a tele-expertise program funded by the Paris Region Health Authority in a secondary care center general hospital of the Paris Region (CHSF), where there was previously no on-site ophthalmologist. We performed an observational, controlled before-after study, with a university tertiary care center with on-site ophthalmologists (Port-Royal) as the control group. Recruitment and data collection for both periods took place from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 31 2012, and from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2015. The primary endpoint was the percentage of compliance with screening guidelines, secondary endpoints included pain scores and costs. Over the two periods, at total of 351 infants were recruited in the CHSF. Implementation of the tele-expertise resulted in an absolute +57.3% increase in the proportion of examinations realized in accordance with guidelines (3.8% during the "before" period and 61.1% during the "after" period, p<0.001). As compared with the control group, the proportion of infants appropriately screened improved (57.5% versus 43.1%, p = 0.002); median pain score on the acute pain rating scale for neonates during examination was significantly higher (median score 5.5/10, range [2.5-5.7] versus 2.0/10, range [1.0-3.1], p = 0.002). Screening rates in the control group remained unchanged. The average cost per examination increased from €337 in the "before" period to €353 in the "after period" in the tele-expertise group. The implementation of tele-expertise for ROP screening in the CHSF medical center resulted in a major improvement of access to care with a small cost increase. The issue of pain control during examination with tele-expertise should be further addressed.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningOutcome Assessment, Health CareRetinopathy of PrematurityControlled Before-After StudiesCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInfant, NewbornMale

Identifiers

PMID30365544
PMCPMC6203387

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.