Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293306›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Evaluating the use of telemedicine in gynaecological practice: a systematic review.

Sughashini Murugesu, Nicolas Galazis, Benjamin P Jones, Maxine Chan, Timothy Bracewell-Milnes, Yousra Ahmed-Salim, Karen Grewal, Dirk Timmerman, Joseph Yazbek, Tom Bourne and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Telemedicine in prenatal care.Central European journal of public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

11 authors.

Sughashini MurugesuObstetrics and Gynaecology, Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust, Uxbridge, UK sugha.murugesu@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8852-0892
Nicolas GalazisQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Benjamin P JonesQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0391-0443
Maxine ChanQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Timothy Bracewell-MilnesObstetrics and Gynaecology, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Hospital, London, UK.
Yousra Ahmed-SalimQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Karen GrewalQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Dirk TimmermanQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Joseph YazbekQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Tom BourneQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Srdjan SasoQueen Charlotte's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this systematic review is to examine the use of telemedicine in the delivery and teaching of gynaecological clinical practice. To our knowledge, no other systematic review has assessed this broad topic.

designSystematic review of all studies investigating the use of telemedicine in the provision of gynaecological care and education. The search for eligible studies followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and focused on three online databases: PubMed, Science Direct and SciFinder. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only studies within gynaecology were considered for this review. Studies covering only obstetrics and with minimal information on gynaecology, or clinical medicine in general were excluded. All English language, peer-reviewed human studies were included. Relevant studies published up to the date of final submission of this review were considered with no restrictions to the publication year. DATA EXTRACTIONS AND SYNTHESIS: Data extracted included author details, year of publication and country of the study, study aim, sample size, methodology, sample characteristics, outcome measures and a summary of findings. Data extraction and qualitative assessment were performed by the first author and crossed checked by the second author. Quality assessment for each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

resultsA literature search carried out in August 2020 yielded 313 records published between 1992 and 2018. Following a rigorous selection process, only 39 studies were included for this review published between 2000 and 2018. Of these, 19 assessed gynaecological clinical practice, eight assessed gynaecological education, one both, and 11 investigated the feasibility of telemedicine within gynaecological practice. 19 studies were classified as good, 12 fair and eight poor using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Telecolposcopy and abortion care were two areas where telemedicine was found to be effective in potentially speeding up diagnosis as well as providing patients with a wide range of management options. Studies focusing on education demonstrated that telementoring could improve teaching in a range of scenarios such as live surgery and international teleconferencing.

conclusionsThe results of this review are promising and demonstrate that telemedicine has a role to play in improving clinical effectiveness and education within gynaecology. Its applications have been shown to be safe and effective in providing remote care and training. In the future, randomised controlled studies involving larger numbers of patients and operators with measurable outcomes are required in order to be able to draw reliable conclusions.

Indexed as

TelemedicineFemaleGynecologyHumansObstetricsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancycolposcopycommunity gynaecologygynaecologymedical education & trainingsubfertilityurogynaecology

Identifiers

PMID33293306
PMCPMC7722813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.