Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35727727›Full record

ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023

Use of instant messaging in electrophysiological clinical practice in Latin America: a LAHRS survey.

Márcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo, Alejandro Cuesta, David Duncker, Serge Boveda, Federico Guerra, Manlio F Márquez

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Márcio Jansen de Oliveira FigueiredoCardiology, Electrophysiology Service, University of Campinas (UNICAMP) Hospital, Campinas, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3477-4667
Alejandro CuestaCardiology Department, Hospital de Clínicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay.
David DunckerHannover Heart Rhythm Center, Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2996-6338
Serge BovedaHeart Rhythm Management Department, Clinique Pasteur, 45 Avenue de Lombez, 31076 Toulouse, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1280-7042
Federico GuerraDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, University Hospital "Umberto I-Lancisi-Salesi", Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.
Manlio F MárquezClinical Investigation Department, National Institute of Cardiology Ignacio Chavez, Mexico City, Mexico.
Clinique Pasteur · FRInstituto Nacional de Cardiología · MXMarche Polytechnic University · ITMedizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversidad de la República de Uruguay · UYUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsInstant messaging (IM) platforms are a prominent component of telemedicine and a practical tool for sharing clinical data and counselling. Purpose of the survey was to inquire about the use of IM, the platforms used, frequency, recipients, and contents in Latin America region. METHODS AND

resultsAn online survey was sent to medical community via newsletter and social media channels. The survey consisted in 22 questions, in Spanish and Portuguese, collected on SurveyMonkey. A total of 125 responders from 13 Latin-American countries (79% male, mean age 46.1 ± 9.7 years) completed the survey. Most of the responders declared that they send (88.8%) and receive (97.6%) clinical data through IM apps. Most senders declare that they anonymize clinical data before sending (71.0 ± 38.3%), but that the data received is anonymized only in 51.4 ± 33.5%. The most common tests shared with other physicians were 12-lead electrocardiograms (99.2%), followed by Holter recordings (68.0%) and tracings from electrophysiological studies (63.2%). The majority (55.2%) said that are unaware of legal data protection rules in their countries.

conclusionsIM apps are used by medical professionals worldwide to share and discuss clinical data and are preferred to many other methods of data sharing and are often used to share many different types of clinical data. They are perceived as a fast and easy way of communication, but medical professionals should be aware of the appropriate use of IM to prevent legal and privacy issues.

Indexed as

PhysiciansTelemedicineText MessagingAdultFemaleHumansLatin AmericaMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical practiceDigital healthElectrophysiology

Identifiers

PMID35727727
PMCPMC10103556
OpenAlexW4283270885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.