Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35061150›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2022

Telemedicine Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Justin Greiwe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Televisits for Parkinson's disease: benefits and barriers.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Liver Diseases: Science, Fiction and the Foreseeable Future.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Justin GreiweBernstein Allergy Group Inc, 4665 E Galbraith Road, Cincinnati, OH, 45236, USA. jcgreiwe@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6143-2323

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPrior to the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, access and utilization of telemedicine in the USA was negligeable, with very little interest from both the public and healthcare sectors. Since that time, telemedicine technology and services have undergone explosive growth and investment and are poised to change the way healthcare is delivered now and in the future. But has telemedicine truly changed the way healthcare is delivered or is it merely a temporary fix for a temporary pandemic? RECENT

findingsThis global public health emergency has exposed vulnerabilities in our healthcare system and telemedicine has proven to be an effective tool to help increase access to care and improve affordability for patients across all racial, economic, geographic, and technological demographics. Looking back on the last 20 months or so since the pandemic started, this review attempts to summarize what has gone well and what has not in the telehealth space and concludes that while far from perfect, telemedicine is here to stay.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineHumansPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2COVID-19eConsultsPandemicTelehealthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35061150
PMCPMC8781708

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.