Observational studyHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
Virtual clinics versus face-to-face review: Is the benefit the same for new orthopaedic patients?
Observational study in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telephone follow-up clinics can lead to a reduction in cost and waiting list times without impacting patient care in elective joint injection patients.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Remote Consultations in England During COVID-19: Challenges in Data Quality, Linkage, and Research Validity.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Article
- The preparation and inception of a National Electronic Register for Cardiovascular Rehabilitation (NERCVR) with initial results, as part of a National Electronic Register for Cardiovascular Diseases (NERCVD).Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
- Straight-to-Test Pathway in Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT)-Negative Patients: A Cost-Effective Approach.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 shocked global healthcare systems, particularly the surgical services, resulting in a significant backlog of patients with waiting times not expected to return to pre-pandemic levels until 2025. The Royal College of Surgeons has recommended a wider use of virtual clinics to meet the increased demand. The efficacy of virtual follow up is well documented in the literature; however, there is very little evidence of the role of virtual clinics in the assessment of new elective patients.
methodsObservational study comparing clinical outcomes of new patients electively referred to orthopaedic virtual clinics between January and February 2021 with face-to-face clinics in January and February 2020.
resultsOver the equivalent time frame, more patients were reviewed in virtual clinics compared to traditional face-to-face (821 vs 499). However, virtual clinics lead to significantly more patients being brought back for follow up (78.3% vs 37.3%) and fewer patients received outcomes that progressed their journey towards a definitive intervention or discharge.
conclusionThe overall benefit of virtual clinic appointments in the context of reviewing new patients remains to be proven. Despite increasing use of virtual clinics in the National Health Service, we have shown a potential delay to patients' clinical progression, ultimately delaying healthcare delivery. Potential methods to improve the benefit of virtual clinics are proposed.
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.