Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32821909›Full record

ReviewAge and ageing2020

Virtual geriatric clinics and the COVID-19 catalyst: a rapid review.

Robert P Murphy, Karen A Dennehy, Maria M Costello, Evelyn P Murphy, Conor S Judge, Martin J O'Donnell, Michelle D Canavan

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Age and ageing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Models of Care for Older People: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Robert P MurphyHRB-Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG).
Karen A DennehyHRB-Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG).
Maria M CostelloHRB-Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG).
Evelyn P MurphyGalway University Hospital, Newcastle Road, Galway.
Conor S JudgeHRB-Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG).
Martin J O'DonnellHRB-Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG).
Michelle D CanavanHRB-Clinical Research Facility, National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG).
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity Hospital Galway · IE

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the current COVID-19 health crisis virtual geriatric clinics have become increasingly utilised to complete outpatient consultations, although concerns exist about feasibility of such virtual consultations for older people. The aim of this rapid review is to describe the satisfaction, clinic productivity, clinical benefit, and costs associated with the virtual geriatric clinic model of care.

methodsA rapid review of PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases was conducted up to April 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the information. Four subdomains were focused on: satisfaction with the virtual geriatric clinic, clinic productivity, clinical benefit to patients, costs and any challenges associated with the virtual clinic process.

resultsNine studies with 975 patients met our inclusion criteria. All were observational studies. Seven studies reported patients were satisfied with the virtual geriatric clinic model of care. Productivity outcomes included reports of cost-effectiveness, savings on transport, and improved waiting list metrics. Clinical benefits included successful polypharmacy reviews, and reductions in acute hospitalisation rates. Varying challenges were reported for both clinicians and patients in eight of the nine studies. Hearing impairments and difficulty with technology added to anxieties experienced by patients. Physicians missed the added value of a thorough physical examination and had concerns about confidentiality.

conclusionVirtual geriatric clinics demonstrate evidence of productivity, benefit to patients, cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction with the treatment provided. In the current suboptimal pandemic climate, virtual geriatric clinics may allow Geriatricians to continue to provide an outpatient service, despite the encountered inherent challenges.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusReferral and ConsultationAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Disease Transmission, InfectiousHumansPandemicsPatient SatisfactionPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineCOVID-19older peopletelehealthtelemedicineVirtual geriatric clinics

Identifiers

PMID32821909
PMCPMC7546041
OpenAlexW3080408112

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.