Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34432601›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of general practice2021

SERIES: eHealth in primary care. Part 5: A critical appraisal of five widely used eHealth applications for primary care - opportunities and challenges.

Marise J Kasteleyn, Anke Versluis, Petra van Peet, Ulrik Bak Kirk, Jens van Dalfsen, Eline Meijer, Persijn Honkoop, Kendall Ho, Niels H Chavannes, Esther P W A Talboom-Kamp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of general practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care - Patients' Perceptions on Caregiving Relationships and Ethics: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Marise J KasteleynDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7751-7516
Anke VersluisDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9489-7925
Petra van PeetDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ulrik Bak KirkThe Research Unit for General Practice, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1683-2189
Jens van DalfsenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Eline MeijerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Persijn HonkoopNational eHealth Living Lab (NeLL), Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2051-4183
Kendall HoFaculty of Medicine, eHealth Strategy Office, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Niels H ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9199
Esther P W A Talboom-KampDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9917-9052
Leiden University · NLAarhus University · DKeHealth Africa · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the pressure on modern healthcare systems, eHealth can offer valuable opportunities. However, understanding the potential and challenges of eHealth in daily practice can be challenging for many general practitioners (GPs) and their staff.

objectivesTo critically appraise five widely used eHealth applications, in relation to safe, evidence-based and high-quality eHealth. Using these applications as examples, we aim to increase understanding of eHealth among GPs and highlight the opportunities and challenges presented by eHealth. DISCUSSION: eHealth applications can support patients while increasing efficiency for GPs. A three-way division (

Indexed as

General PractitionersTelemedicineArtificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareHumansPrimary Health CarechallengeseHealthopportunitiesprimary care

Identifiers

PMID34432601
PMCPMC8405089
OpenAlexW3193487282

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.