Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812727›Full record

ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2022

Pilot trial of telemedicine in urology: Video vs. telephone consultations.

David-Dan Nguyen, Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, David Bouhadana, Kahina Bensaadi, François Peloquin, Jean-Baptiste Lattouf, Daniel Liberman, Manon Choinière, Naeem Bhojani

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Virtual medicine in urology: Is it here to stay?Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

David-Dan NguyenFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Anne Xuan-Lan NguyenFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
David BouhadanaFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Kahina BensaadiCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
François PeloquinCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jean-Baptiste LattoufCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Daniel LibermanCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Manon ChoinièreCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Naeem BhojaniCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAMcGill University · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the past year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person clinical activities have been drastically restricted, driving the already growing interest in the use of telemedicine in the urban setting to reduce unnecessary commute. Therefore, there has been a rapid shift to telephone and video consultations in outpatient practice. We sought to conduct a pilot trial to establish feasibility and acceptability of video consultations as an alternative to telephone consultations in urology patients to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial.

methodsWe conducted a single-center, prospective, non-randomized pilot trial comparing telephone consultations (TC) vs. video consultations (VC) for urology outpatient visits. Two patient questionnaires were used to collect demographic information, as well as data about acceptability, feasibility, satisfaction, cost, and issues with telemedicine. Questions were identical for both VC and TC except for certain questions inquiring about issues specific to each technology.

resultsForty-eight TC and 66 VC urology patients were included in this study. Patients believed that telemedicine visits did not significantly hinder their ability to communicate with their urologists and that these visits would be associated with cost savings. There was 1/48 (2.1%) failed TC and 16/66 (24.2%) failed VC. VC failures were concentrated at the beginning of the trial prior to giving feedback to the VC platform creators, with only one failure occurring thereafter. When comparing TC to VC, differences between the two patient groups were small but tended to be in favor of VC. Patients' satisfaction was greater with VC compared to TC. Both modalities were associated with many cost benefits for patients.

conclusionsDespite more technical issues with VC, this modality is feasible and acceptable to patients, likely due to improved shared decision-making with VC. Future considerations for trials comparing VC and TC should include adequate Wi-Fi infrastructure and choice of platform. For the VC, continuous knowledge transfer between investigators and platform engineers plays an important role in limiting failed encounters.

Identifiers

PMID34812727
PMCPMC9054330
OpenAlexW3216022910

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.