ArticleRevista clinica espanola
[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic above a universal electronic consultation program (e-consultation) between general practitioners and cardiologists].
Article in Revista clinica espanola. 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.
- Advanced electronic consultation between primary care and cardiology: impact of tele-echocardiography and event-based electrocardiographic monitoring.European heart journal open · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blackground and objective: Virtual healthcare models, usually between healthcare professionals and patients, have developed strongly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but there are not data of models between clinicians. Our objective is to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the activity and health outcomes of the universal e-consultation program for patient referrals between primary care physicians and the Cardiology Department in our area. Methods: Patients with at least one e-consultation between 2018 and 2021 were selected. We analysed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on activity and waiting time for care, hospitalizations and mortality, taking as a reference the consultations carried out during 2018. Results: We analysed 25,121 patients. Through logistic regression analysis, it was observed that a shorter delay in care and resolution of the e-consultation without the need for face-to-face care were associated with a better prognosis. The COVID-19 pandemic periods (2019-2020 and 2020-2021) were not associated with worse health outcomes compared to 2018. Conclusions: The results of our study show a significant reduction in e-consult referrals during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic with a subsequent recovery in the demand for care without the pandemic periods being associated with worse outcomes. The reduction in the time elapsed for solving the e-consult and no need for in-person visit were associated with better outcomes.
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.