Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31621847›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

Electronic consultations (E-consults) and their outcomes: a systematic review.

Varsha G Vimalananda, Jay D Orlander, Melissa K Afable, B Graeme Fincke, Amanda K Solch, Seppo T Rinne, Eun Ji Kim, Sarah L Cutrona, Dylan D Thomas, Judith L Strymish and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Primary care providers and their needs caring for cancer survivors: a qualitative study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Varsha G VimalanandaCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA.
Jay D OrlanderDepartment of General Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Melissa K AfableCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
B Graeme FinckeCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA.
Amanda K SolchCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA.
Seppo T RinneCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA.
Eun Ji KimCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sarah L CutronaCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA.
Dylan D ThomasCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA.
Judith L StrymishDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Steven R SimonCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Applying Relational Coordination to Implement a Pulmonary E-consult InterventionIK2HX002248 · VA · EDITH NOURSE ROGERS MEMORIAL VETERANS HOSPITAL · PI RINNE, SEPPO T · 2019 to 2024
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX002248
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic consultations (e-consults) are clinician-to-clinician communications that may obviate face-to-face specialist visits. E-consult programs have spread within the US and internationally despite limited data on outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the recent peer-reviewed literature on the effect of e-consults on access, cost, quality, and patient and clinician experience and identified the gaps in existing research on these outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched 4 databases for empirical studies published between 1/1/2015 and 2/28/2019 that reported on one or more outcomes of interest. Two investigators reviewed titles and abstracts. One investigator abstracted information from each relevant article, and another confirmed the abstraction. We applied the GRADE criteria for the strength of evidence for each outcome.

resultsWe found only modest empirical evidence for effectiveness of e-consults on important outcomes. Most studies are observational and within a single health care system, and comprehensive assessments are lacking. For those outcomes that have been reported, findings are generally positive, with mixed results for clinician experience. These findings reassure but also raise concern for publication bias.

conclusionDespite stakeholder enthusiasm and encouraging results in the literature to date, more rigorous study designs applied across all outcomes are needed. Policy makers need to know what benefits may be expected in what contexts, so they can define appropriate measures of success and determine how to achieve them.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsHealth Services AccessibilityQuality of Health CareRemote ConsultationHumansPrimary Health CareTelemedicineTreatment Outcomeconsultationconsultation and referralremote consultationsystematic reviewtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID31621847
PMCPMC7647247

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.