ArticleHereditary cancer in clinical practice2023
Comparing telemedicine and in-person gastrointestinal cancer genetic appointment outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Hereditary cancer in clinical practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.BMC health services research · 2024Trial
- When screentime fails: initiative to improve completion of hereditary cancer genetic testing after telemedicine counseling.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Familial Disclosure and Cascade Testing in High-Risk Families is Influenced by Gene Variant Penetrance: Implications for Family based Breast Cancer Prevention.Research square · 2026Article
- Assessing genetic counseling efficiency with natural language processing.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Pilot implementation study of a default genetic referral process for patients with early-onset colorectal cancer.Genetics in medicine open · 2025Article
- Addressing the need for genetic cancer risk assessment in Mexico: From establishment of a formal program to delivery innovation and expansion.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
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
backgroundThe study purpose is to compare outcomes associated with completion of genetic testing between telemedicine and in-person gastrointestinal cancer risk assessment appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsData was collected on patients with scheduled appointments between July 2020 and June 2021 in a gastrointestinal cancer risk evaluation program (GI-CREP) that utilized both telemedicine and in-person visits throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and a survey was administered.
resultsA total of 293 patients had a GI-CREP appointment scheduled and completion rates of in-person versus telemedicine appointments were similar. Individuals diagnosed with cancer and those with Medicaid insurance had lower rates of appointment completion. Although telehealth was the preferred visit modality, there were no differences in recommending genetic testing nor in the consent rate for genetic testing between in-person and telemedicine visits. However, of patients who consented for genetic testing, more than three times more patients seen via telemedicine did not complete genetic testing compared to those seen in-person (18.3% versus 5.2%, p = 0.008). Furthermore, telemedicine visits had a longer turnaround time for genetic test reporting (32 days versus 13 days, p < 0.001).
conclusionsCompared to in-person GI-CREP appointments, telemedicine was associated with lower rates of genetic testing completion, and longer turnaround time for results.
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.