ArticleInfectious diseases now2022
Teleconsultation in family medicine amid the Covid-19 pandemic: An adequate tool?
Article in Infectious diseases now, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTeleconsultation is an emerging tool whose utilization dramatically increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. Our aim was to determine its clinical accuracy.
methodsThis prospective study was carried out during the first wave of Covid-19. Patients were teleconsulted by either general practitioners or emergency doctors reporting clinical exam results to the ID physicians by phone. Five signs were specifically checked: dyspnea, fever, cough, anosmia and flu-like illness. Data collected by remote consultation were compared to face-to-face examination in an ID Department.
resultsFrom March to April 2020, 149 patients were seen by remote medical care. Dyspnea was found in 14.1% of the teleconsultation patients vs 3.4% in face-to-face consultation; fever in 47.0 vs. 15.4%; cough in 69.1 vs. 16.1%; anosmia in 3.4 vs. 1.3%; flu-like illness in 53.0 vs. 7.4% (all differences significant: P<0.001).
conclusionWe observed incongruency between remote and face-to-face consultation for the main clinical signs of Covid-19.
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.