ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Evaluation of Internet-Connected Real-Time Remote Auscultation: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The utility of remote auscultation was unknown. This study aimed to evaluate internet-connected real-time remote auscultation using cardiopulmonary simulators. In this open-label randomized controlled trial, the physicians were randomly assigned to the real-time remote auscultation group (intervention group) or the classical auscultation group (control group). After the training session, the participants had to classify the ten cardiopulmonary sounds in random order as the test session. In both sessions, the intervention group auscultated with an internet-connected electronic stethoscope. The control group performed direct auscultation using a classical stethoscope. The total scores for correctly identified normal or abnormal cardiopulmonary sounds were 97/100 (97%) in the intervention group and 98/100 (98%) in the control group with no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.99). In cardiac auscultation, the test score in the control group (94%) was superior to that in the intervention group (72%, p < 0.05). Valvular diseases were not misclassified as normal sounds in real-time remote cardiac auscultation. The utility of real-time remote cardiopulmonary auscultation using an internet-connected electronic stethoscope was comparable to that of classical auscultation. Classical cardiac auscultation was superior to real-time remote auscultation. However, real-time remote cardiac auscultation is useful for classifying valvular diseases and normal sounds.
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.