ArticleHealth science reports2023
A scoping review of foot and ankle telemedicine guidelines.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. 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.
- Smartphone Photogrammetry as a Tool for Pes Planus Assessment: Reliability and Agreement with Radiographic Measurements.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Video-based musculoskeletal examination of the foot and ankle: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- An evaluation of a virtual musculoskeletal podiatry service implemented to address prolonged National Health Service waiting times.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2024Article
- A scoping review of foot and ankle telemedicine guidelines.Health science reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine in general. Its use has been widely adopted in the healthcare sector, but relatively little research has been conducted on the use of telemedicine for podiatry. This review aimed to explore and compare existing guidelines on telemedicine related to foot and ankle pathologies within a primary care setting. Methods: The preferred reporting guidelines for the extension of scoping reviews were used in this review, and a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed and implemented. This study made use of both databases and gray literature searches. Between 2012 and 2022, these databases were searched using various subject headings and free-text terms for the keywords "telemedicine" "foot health" and "guidelines" with appropriate Boolean operators. Results: The search yielded 356 articles, which were reduced to 283 after removing duplicates. Six more records were discovered through a Google and Google Scholar search and one through an article reference search. Six articles and three institutional practice guidelines were selected for synthesis after screening. The findings were classified according to the level of evidence and research quality, the function of telemedicine and the communication used, the research outcomes sought, and the type of recommendations and guidelines made available. Conclusion: This review highlights the lack of podiatric telemedicine guidelines for foot and ankle pathologies. Although foot and ankle guidelines for orthopedic and musculoskeletal virtual consultations have been mentioned, they do not cover the full range of potential case scenarios that fall within the remit of podiatric consultations in a primary care setting. This review suggests the development of foot and ankle telemedicine guidelines with recommendations on how they can better provide accessible care to their patients, making foot and ankle care management not only a hand-on-one but also reachable virtually, where applicable.
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.