ArticleEmergency radiology2022
Reliability of teleconsultation in the diagnosis and treatment of proximal humeral fractures.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement on clinical examination and management between virtual videoconferencing and in-person assessment in a tertiary shoulder center.JSES international · 2025Article
- Advancing orthopaedic trauma care through WhatsApp: An analysis of clinical and non-clinical applications, challenges, and future directions.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Review
- Assessment of discordance between radiologists and emergency physicians of RADIOgraphs among discharged patients in an emergency department: the RADIO-ED study.Emergency radiology · 2024Review
- The role of Grey Scale Inversion Imaging (GSII) as a diagnostic tool of neck of femur fractures: is it more effective?Emergency radiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTeleconsultation has become a routine part of clinical practice. The question arises as to whether this is reliable or not. Various studies have assessed the reliability in fractures at other locations in the extremities, but there is no study investigating teleconsultation reliability for proximal humeral fractures, proximal humerus fractures, which are fractures that may cause difficulties in making diagnosis and treatment decisions. Our aim was to evaluate whether proximal humerus fractures could be accurately assessed via teleconsultation.
methodsRetrospectively, the radiological images of 83 patients were included in the study. Diagnosis and treatment classifications were made by 4 experienced orthopedic specialists. Interobserver and intraobserver analyses were performed on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions based on two forms of evaluation, direct analysis of images in the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and the analysis of photographs taken from the PACS computer screen that were sent via WhatsApp.
resultsIt was observed that there were excellent interobserver and intraobserver compatibility values for Neer and AO classifications and treatment decisions. No significant difference was observed in the evaluation of the images transferred via WhatsApp and the direct evaluation of PACS images.
conclusionThe reliability of teleconsultation was found to be high in the radiological evaluation of proximal humerus fractures. It is clear that these consultations cannot replace the evaluation of the patient as a whole; however, we think that rapid consultation can enable faster patient management and more accurate diagnosis, especially when under time constraints.
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.