ArticleTelemedicine reports2024
A Retrospective Observational Study on Telemedicine in Prescribing Low-Dose Pills for Patients with Dysmenorrhea.
Article in Telemedicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In Japan, telemedicine has gradually expanded due to deregulation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, its current status remains unclear, as it is primarily provided by general practitioners. Meanwhile, telemedicine has begun to be utilized for low-dose estrogen-progestin (LEP) prescriptions for dysmenorrhea. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of medical record data from two gynecology clinics and performed an exploratory evaluation between a group that combined telemedicine and in-person visits during the initial 6 months of LEP treatment, and another group with only in-person visits. Results: After propensity score matching, 89 and 83 patients were eligible for the telemedicine and in-person groups, respectively, with 53 patients in both. The characteristics of both groups were similar after matching. There were no significant differences in the probability of abnormal uterine bleeding during the first 6 months of treatment (25% and 43% in each group; Conclusion: The appropriate combination of telemedicine and in-person visits is currently employed in hospital visits, which does not differ significantly from in-person visits. Given the retrospective nature of this study and the limited number of cases, further investigation is necessary in the future.
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.