ReviewFertility and sterility2020
Where will telemedicine go from here?
Review in Fertility and sterility, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The web-based Pleasure&Pregnancy programme in the treatment of unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Trial
- The DIY IVF cycle-harnessing the power of deeptech to bring ART to the masses.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Review
- Oncofertility and COVID-19: At the Crossroads between Two Time-Sensitive Fields.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine internationally. The reproductive clinics that thrived in this tumultuous time had access to fully electronic medical records with user-friendly telehealth platforms and remote support staff for physicians. However, complete transition from in-person visits to telehealth uncovered many opportunities for innovation. At-home semen testing is not yet widely recognized, and patients still require an in-person visit for ultrasounds, procedures, and physical examinations. Although emergency policies and waivers have made it easier for providers to legally practice across state borders and receive payments from insurance companies, they vary from state to state and have not been cemented into law. Finally, clinical training for medical students, residents, and fellows has been affected by decreased clinical and surgical volume. However, trainees have also proven to be the most adaptable, quickly shifting to remote learning practices through social media, online surgical atlases, and wide distribution of "virtual visiting professor" lectures. As countries have eased physical distancing guidelines, patients ultimately benefit from having the option of a telehealth appointment. Although there is still much work to be done to improve telehealth, the COVID-19 pandemic has at least proven that it is a safe method of patient care and teaching.
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.