Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33951666›Full record

ArticleUrologia internationalis2021

Mapping Telemedicine in German Private Practice Urological Care: Implications for Transitioning beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Severin Rodler, Julius M Schütz, Amelie Styn, Philipp Weinhold, Jozefina Casucelli, Lennert Eismann, Ricarda M Bauer, Michael Staehler, Christian Stief, Alexander Buchner and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Urologia internationalis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Recent Advances of Mobile Healthcare in Cardiology Practice.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Severin RodlerKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Julius M SchützKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Amelie StynKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Philipp WeinholdKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Jozefina CasucelliKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Lennert EismannKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Ricarda M BauerKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Michael StaehlerKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Christian StiefKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Alexander BuchnerKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Jan-Niclas MummKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are limited data on the use and concern of telemedicine among German urologists, and thus, there are no established guidelines for telemedical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urological indications.

methodsAn anonymized survey was conducted among German private practice urologists during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis.

results257 urologists were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (14.0%) of urologists had used telemedicine as part of their consultation, and 221 (86.0%) had not used telemedicine. There was no difference between telemedicine adoption rates between rural and urban settings. Telemedicine users were significantly more satisfied with the information they had received regarding telemedicine issues. Users saw the greatest barrier to telemedicine that patients do not take up the offer of telemedicine. Nonusers were most concerned with unclear indications for telemedicine followed by lesser reimbursements during telemedicine than in-person visitations. Users were significantly more likely to use telemedicine beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Urologists, who wanted to use the service in the future, wanted an active support by the German society of urology and guidelines for telemedicine. Last, users and nonusers preferred telemedicine for non-acute chronic diseases and follow-up visitations.

conclusionDespite the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine remains a rarely used service among German private practice urologists. Ultimately, to overcome the current challenges, urologists require an active support for the service through the German Society of Urology and telemedical guidelines.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to ComputersGermanyHealth Care SurveysHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Private PracticeTelemedicineUrologic DiseasesUrologistsUrologyGuidelinesTelehealthTelemedicineUrology

Identifiers

PMID33951666
PMCPMC8247820
OpenAlexW3158447944

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.