ArticleHeliyon2023
Telestroke value through the eyes of emergency medicine providers: A counterfactual analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Emergency Medicine (EM) provider experiences consulting telestroke (TS) are poorly studied. In this qualitative study, we aimed to determine how TS changes patient management and to measure TS effects on EM provider confidence with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment. Materials and methods: We designed a survey for EM providers querying perceptions of TS value, confidence with treating AIS, and counterfactuals regarding what EM providers would have done without TS. Eligible EM providers participated in an audio-visual TS consult within a 6-state TS network between 11/2016-11/2017. Results: We received 48 surveys (response rate 43%). The most common reason (71%) for using TS was tPA eligibility expert opinion. Most EM providers (94%) thought the patient/family were satisfied with TS and none felt their medical knowledge was doubted because of using TS. EM providers had high confidence in diagnosing AIS (95%) and tPA decision-making (86%), but not in determining thrombectomy eligibility (10%). Among EM providers who administered tPA, 85% said tPA would not have been given without TS consultation. TS consultation changed patient diagnosis in 60% of all patients and treatment plans in 56% of non-stroke patients. Most EM providers (86%) had increased confidence in their knowledge of future stroke patient management. Nearly all TS consults (93%) resulted in EM providers being more likely to use TS again. Conclusions: TS consult frequently results in both patient management change and increased EM knowledge of stroke management with increased likelihood of repeat usage. Discomfort in determining eligibility for thrombectomy points to educational opportunities.
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.