ReviewBone & joint open2020
How useful are virtual fracture clinics?: a systematic review.
Review in Bone & joint open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence in virtual fracture clinics: a systematic review of imaging and clinical-text tools.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- The clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction of the virtual fracture clinic in the UK: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Direct discharge of patients with simple stable musculoskeletal injuries as an alternative to routine follow-up: a systematic review of the current literature.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- The Carbon Footprint of In-person Versus Virtual Orthopaedic Care.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Patient Experiences With a Mobile Self-Care Solution for Low-Complex Orthopedic Injuries: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Towards a sustainable future in traumatology and orthopaedic surgery. The contribution of « Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique » (SICOT).International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Patients' experiences of a Virtual Fracture Assessment Clinic Pathway: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Attitudes toward the adoption of eHealth amongst healthcare professionals in trauma surgery - the new digital normal?BMC health services research · 2024Article
- A survey of patient acceptability of the use of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of paediatric fractures: an observational study.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Observational
- Article
- Article
- Health Care Professionals' Experiences With a Mobile Self-Care Solution for Low Complex Orthopedic Injuries: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- The Efficacy of Virtual Fracture Clinics (VFCs) and the Impact of Physician Risk Appetite on Discharge Rates.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Opportunities arising from the COVID-19: an international orthopaedic surgeons' perspective.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Article
- How safe and effective are paediatric virtual fracture clinics? A systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the overwhelming demand for trauma services, resulting from increasing emergency department attendances over the past decade, virtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have become the fashion to keep up with the demand and help comply with the BOA Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics (BOAST) guidelines. In this article, we perform a systematic review asking, "How useful are VFCs?", and what injuries and conditions can be treated safely and effectively, to help decrease patient face to face consultations. Our primary outcomes were patient satisfaction, clinical efficiency and cost analysis, and clinical outcomes.
methodsWe performed a systematic literature search of all papers pertaining to VFCs, using the search engines PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Searches were carried out and screened by two authors, with final study eligibility confirmed by the senior author.
resultsIn total, 21 records were relevant to our research question. Six orthopaedic injuries were identified as suitable for VFC review, with a further four discussed in detail. A reduction of face to face appointments of up to 50% was reported with greater compliance to BOAST guidelines (46.4%) and cost saving (up to £212,000).
conclusionsThis systematic review demonstrates that the VFC model can help deliver a safe, more cost-effective, and more efficient arm of the trauma service to patients.Cite this article:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.