ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2021
Telephone interview in urogynecology in the era of COVID-19 pandemic
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Mannitol Bladder Distension in the Intraoperative Detection of Ureteral Kinking During Pelvic Floor Surgery.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Implementing telemedicine in urogynecology: A feasibility study.International urogynecology journal · 2023Observational
- Telemedicine and Telehealth in Urology-What Do the 'Patients' Think About It?Frontiers in surgery · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: During the Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic deferable access, including non-urgent outpatient visits, have been suspended. In our practice non-urgent routine visits for pelvic floor symptom assessment were discontinued and rescheduled, and telephone interview was performed. The aim was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction for this alternative approach. Material and Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted using a validated questionnaire to investigate pelvic floor symptoms. Patients were also asked if they had other symptoms or disorders, to identify patients who may need urgent hospital evaluation. At the end of the phone call, patients were asked to score their satisfaction with the telephone interview by grading their response to three questions from 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum). The questions were: 1) “Was the telephone interview useful to check your state of health?”; 2) “Was the telephone interview an adequate healthcare tool in consideration of COVID-19 outbreak?”; 3) “Could the telephone interview replace the conventional visit?”. Results: Fifty-three patients were evaluated. All patients showed great satisfaction with telephone interview (Q1 median: 10, IQ range: 10-10) and were similarly positive in response to the second question (Q2 median: 10, IQ range: 10-10). Although fewer patients felt that telephone interview could replace conventional clinic visits most remained positive (Q3 median: 7; IQ range: 6-8). Conclusion: This simple experience showed that phone interviews with validated questionnaires are appreciated and effective to safely perform interview of selected urogynecologic patients.
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.