Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33385246›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Implementing telemedicine for the management of benign urologic conditions: a single centre experience in Italy.

Enrico Checcucci, Stefano De Luca, Paolo Alessio, Paolo Verri, Stefano Granato, Sabrina De Cillis, Daniele Amparore, Michele Sica, Federico Piramide, Alberto Piana and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Telemedicine in the COVID-19 Era: A Narrative Review Based on Current Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

17 authors.

Enrico CheccucciDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy. checcu.e@hotmail.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7901-5608
Stefano De LucaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Paolo AlessioDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Paolo VerriDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Stefano GranatoDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Sabrina De CillisDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Daniele AmparoreDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Michele SicaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Federico PiramideDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Alberto PianaDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Gabriele VolpiDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Matteo ManfrediDivision of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Gabriella BalestraDepartment of Electronics and Telecommunications, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.
Cristian Fiori *Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Francesco Porpiglia *Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Uro-technology and SoMe Working Group of the Young Academic Urologists Working Party of the European Association of Urology

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the use of telemedicine with phone-call visits as a practical tool to follow-up with patients affected by urological benign diseases, whose clinic visits had been cancelled during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsPatients were contacted via phone-call and a specific questionnaire was administered to evaluate the health status of these patients and to identify those who needed an "in-person" ambulatory visit due to the worsening of their condition. Secondarily, the patients' perception of a potential shift towards a "telemedicine" approach to the management of their condition and to indirectly evaluate their desire to return to "in-person" clinic visits.

results607 were contacted by phone-call. 87.5% (531/607) of the cases showed stability of the symptoms so no clinic in-person or emergency visits were needed. 81.5% (495/607) of patients were more concerned about the risk of contagion than their urological condition. The median score for phone visit comprehensibility and ease of communication of exams was 5/5; whilst patients' perception of phone visits' usefulness was scored 4/5. 53% (322/607) of the interviewees didn't own the basic supports required to be able to perform a real telemedicine consult according to the required standards.

conclusionTelemedicine approach limits the number of unnecessary accesses to medical facilities and represents an important tool for the limitation of the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. However, infrastructures, health workers and patients should reach out to a computerization process to allow a wider diffusion of more advanced forms of telemedicine, such as televisit.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthCOVID-19TelemedicineAdultAftercareAgedAged, 80 and overDisease ManagementFemaleHumansImplementation ScienceItalyMaleMiddle AgedProstatic HyperplasiaSARS-CoV-2BPHCovid-19Phone-counsellingTelehealthTelemedicineUrology

Identifiers

PMID33385246
PMCPMC7775638

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.