Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32459637›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Follow-up for Patients With Abdominal Pain Using Video Consultation (SAVED Study): Randomized Controlled Trial.

Dinesh Visva Gunasekeran, Zhenghong Liu, Win Jim Tan, Joshua Koh, Chiu Peng Cheong, Lay Hong Tan, Chee Siang Lau, Gaik Kheng Phuah, Newsie Donnah A Manuel, Che Chong Chia and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Critical revisits after discharge from the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

19 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dinesh Visva Gunasekeran *Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-8502-2334
Zhenghong Liu *Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3361-3818
Win Jim TanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7975-6892
Joshua KohDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-6589-256X
Chiu Peng CheongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-4300-2757
Lay Hong TanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-6267-9608
Chee Siang LauDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5153-709X
Gaik Kheng PhuahDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-0961-2439
Newsie Donnah A ManuelDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-7788-8181
Che Chong ChiaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7770-3383
Gek Siang SengDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3132-7631
Nancy TongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1756-4761
May Hang HuinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5204-7527
Suzette Villaluna DulceDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2544-2521
Susan YapDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7891-1555
Kishanti PonampalamDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7337-9862
Hao YingHealth Services Research Center, Singhealth Services, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5801-7046
Marcus Eng Hock OngDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-7874-7612
R PonampalamDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-5813-2044
Singapore General Hospital · SGSingHealth · SGNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe benefits of telemedicine include cost savings and decentralized care. Video consultation is one form that enables early detection of deteriorating patients and promotion of self-efficacy in patients who are well but anxious. Abdominal pain is a common symptom presented by patients in emergency departments. These patients could benefit from video consultation, as it enables remote follow-up of patients who do not require admission and facilitates early discharge of patients from overcrowded hospitals.

objectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the use of digital telereview in patients presenting with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain.

methodsThe SAVED study was a prospective randomized controlled trial in which follow-up using existing telephone-based telereview (control) was compared with digital telereview (intervention). Patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain discharged from the emergency department observation ward were studied based on intention-to-treat. The control arm received routine, provider-scheduled telereview with missed reviews actively coordinated and rescheduled by emergency department staff. The intervention arm received access to a platform for digital telereview (asynchronous and synchronous format) that enabled patient-led appointment rescheduling. Patients were followed-up for 2 weeks for outcomes of service utilization, efficacy (compliance with their disposition plan), and safety (re-presentation for the same condition).

resultsA total of 70 patients participated, with patients randomly assigned to each arm (1:1 ratio). Patients were a mean age of 40.0 (SD 13.8; range 22-71) years, predominantly female (47/70, 67%), and predominantly of Chinese ethnicity (39/70, 56%). The telereview service was used by 32 patients in the control arm (32/35, 91%) and 18 patients in the intervention arm (18/35, 51%). Most patients in control (33/35, 94%; 95% CI 79.5%-99.0%) and intervention (34/35, 97%; 95% CI 83.4%-99.9%) arms were compliant with their final disposition. There was a low rate of re-presentation at 72 hours and 2 weeks for both control (72 hours: 2/35, 6%; 95% CI 1.0%-20.5%; 2 weeks: 2/35, 6%, 95% CI 1.0%-20.5%) and intervention (72 hours: 2/35, 6%; 95% CI 1.0%-20.5%; 2 weeks: 3/35, 9%, 95% CI 2.2%-24.2%) arms. There were no significant differences in safety (P>.99) and efficacy (P>.99) between the two groups.

conclusionsThe application of digital telereview for the follow-up of patients with abdominal pain may be safe and effective. Future studies are needed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness and usefulness for broader clinical application.

trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN28468556; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28468556.

Indexed as

Abdominal PainAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationSafetyTelemedicineTreatment OutcomeVideo RecordingYoung Adultabdominal paindigital healthemergency departmentprimary careteleconsultationtelereviewvideo consultation

Identifiers

PMID32459637
PMCPMC7324993
OpenAlexW3023966127

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.