ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2021
Telemedical versus onsite treatment at an orthopaedic university clinic: Study of 280 consecutive patients.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2021. 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, 0 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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Compare a telemedical treatment (distant working) with an onsite treatment. Telemedical services have been used frequently in non-surgical disciplines. It remains unclear if orthopaedic outpatients can be treated via telemedicine. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and recommended therapy of a mobile healthcare communication app. Design: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, anonymized clinical study of consecutive outpatients at an orthopaedic department at a university hospital. Patients were treated by an onsite doctor, who then uploaded each patient's variables (e.g. personal history, clinical findings, radiograph) for evaluation by a telemedical doctor. The telemedical doctor received the information only via app and did not see the patient physically. Both the onsite and telemedical doctors then uploaded their respective diagnosis and suggested therapy, blinded to each other. The patient received treatment from the onsite doctor only: virtual treatment was solely for scientific purposes and had no therapeutic impact. Results: Among 280 consecutive orthopaedic outpatients (57% female and 43% male), the mean age was 63 years. In 83% of cases, the telemedical diagnosis matched the onsite diagnosis, and in 98% of cases, the telemedical treatment did no harm. In 75% of cases, the onsite and telemedical doctors proposed the same therapy. In 2% of cases, the telemedical therapeutic regimen differed from the onsite treatment and could possibly harm the patient. Conclusion: The results suggest that diagnosis and treatment via telemedicine seems feasible in the field of orthopaedic surgery and could be an option for telemedical patient interactions (via work from home or virtual interactions).
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.