ArticleF&S reports2021
Traits of patients seen via telemedicine versus in person for new-patient visits in a fertility practice.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- At-Home Transvaginal Pelvic Ultrasonography and Image Quality in Premenopausal Women: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- High patient satisfaction with both telehealth and in-person new patient visits at a large academic fertility center.F&S reports · 2026Article
- Navigating fertility care in the telehealth era: association of consultation mode with patient engagement and pregnancy outcomes.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Patient perspectives of telehealth for fertility care: a national survey.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Neighborhood disadvantage is associated with decreased ovarian reserve in women with overweight and obesity.Fertility and sterility · 2023Article
- Satisfaction with Telemedicine for Cancer Pain Management: A Model of Care and Cross-Sectional Patient Satisfaction Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Access to Fertility Care in Geographically Underserved Populations, a Second Look.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Review
- The impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures on fertility patients and clinics around the world.Reproductive biomedicine online · 2022Article
- Telemedicine for reproductive medicine: pandemic and beyond.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.