Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34278358›Full record

ArticleF&S reports2021

Traits of patients seen via telemedicine versus in person for new-patient visits in a fertility practice.

Vinita M Alexander, Allison P Schelble, Kenan R Omurtag

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F&S reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Geographic Access to Fertility Counseling among Adolescent and Young Adult Women with Cancer in North Carolina.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  5. Patient perspectives of telehealth for fertility care: a national survey.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Telemedicine for reproductive medicine: pandemic and beyond.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vinita M AlexanderDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Allison P SchelbleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Kenan R OmurtagDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Reproductive Epidemiology Training Program at Washington University in St. LouisT32HD055172 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, TESSA · 2009 to 2018
$2.5M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD055172
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the differences in demographics, the likelihood of receiving treatment, and the clinical outcomes between new patients seen via telemedicine and those seen in person in an academic fertility practice.

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingUniversity-based fertility clinic. PATIENTS: All new patients seen via telemedicine between June 1, 2017, and February 29, 2020, were compared with an equal number of all new patients seen in person between May 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019.

interventionsNone.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was receiving treatment after a new-patient visit. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the odds ratio for not receiving treatment according to distance to the clinic and duration of infertility. The secondary outcomes included treatment recommendation, time to treatment initiation, and time to positive pregnancy test (if achieved). In addition we assessed patient demographics and visit traits per patient encounter.

resultsThe telemedicine and in-person groups each contained 70 patients. The following were similar between the groups: age, body mass index, Area Deprivation Index, diagnosis made at the new-patient visit, and the number of clinic contacts before starting treatment. Compared with patients who had in-person new-patient visits, those who had telemedicine new-patient visits lived farther from the clinic (mean, 223.6 vs. 69.28 miles) and had a longer duration of infertility (mean, 41.9 vs. 19.49 months). No differences were noted between the groups in the following outcomes: percent that received treatment, time to treatment initiation, or time to pregnancy. Telemedicine new-patient visits were shorter than in-person new-patient visits (mean, 56.3 ± 9.1 vs. 59.3 ± 4.6 minutes) and less likely to contain documentation of height or weight.

conclusionsTelemedicine appears to be of particular interest to patients who live farther from clinics and have longer durations of infertility, and it could reduce visit times. New patients seen in person and those seen via telemedicine are equally likely to pursue treatment. Telemedicine consultation for new-patient visits is feasible in an academic fertility practice and may be especially useful during a pandemic and in non-pandemic times in areas with limited access to fertility specialists.

Indexed as

fertilitynew-patient visitTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34278358
PMCPMC8267397
OpenAlexW3093332854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.