ArticleHealth science reports2024
Level of diagnostic agreement in musculoskeletal shoulder diagnosis between remote and face-to-face consultations: A retrospective service evaluation.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement on clinical examination and management between virtual videoconferencing and in-person assessment in a tertiary shoulder center.JSES international · 2025Article
- Level of diagnostic agreement in musculoskeletal shoulder diagnosis between remote and face-to-face consultations: A retrospective service evaluation.Health science reports · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: To determine the level of diagnostic agreement between remote and face-to-face consultation in assessing shoulder complaints. Methods: A retrospective service evaluation with three groups of patient data; those assessed only face-to-face (group 1), remotely then face-to-face (group 2), remotely only (group 3). Patient data were extracted from 6 secondary care shoulder Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioner's (APPs) records, covering six sites. Three-hundred-and-fifty-nine sets of patient data were included in the final evaluation. The main outcome measure was the percentage of agreement between diagnosis at initial and follow-up consultation, when assessed by APPs across the three groups. A Pearson Results: There was exact agreement of 77.05% and 85.52% for groups 1 and 3, respectively, compared with 34.93% for patient data in group 2. Similar clinical impressions across both initial and follow-up were seen 16.39% of the time in group 1, 7.24% of the time in group 3, and 36.99% in group 2. Lastly, the percentage of times a diagnosis was changed between initial and review appointments occurred in only 6.56% of group 1 contacts, 7.24% of group 3 contacts, but 28.08% of the time in group 2. Conclusion: There was a large mismatch in the diagnosis of musculoskeletal shoulder complaints, when patients are initially assessed remotely and then followed-up in-person. This has implications for the future provision of shoulder assessment in physiotherapy.
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.