Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689613›Full record

ReviewmHealth2024

A narrative review of telemedicine and its adoption across specialties.

John P Garcia, Francisco R Avila, Ricardo A Torres-Guzman, Karla C Maita, Julianne J Lunde, Jordan D Coffey, Bart M Demaerschalk, Antonio J Forte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in mHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Clinician Experiences With Tele-Emergency Care: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Digital Inclusion in Parkinson's Disease: A Case-Control Study.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John P GarciaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1401-2830
Francisco R AvilaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Ricardo A Torres-GuzmanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Karla C MaitaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Julianne J LundeCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jordan D CoffeyCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Bart M DemaerschalkCenter for Digital Health, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Antonio J ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Telemedicine and video consultation are crucial advancements in healthcare, allowing remote delivery of care. Telemedicine, encompassing various technologies like wearable devices, mobile health, and telemedicine, plays a significant role in managing illnesses and promoting wellness. The corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine, ensuring convenient access to medical services while maintaining physical distance. Legislation has supported its integration into clinical practice and addressed compensation issues. However, ensuring clinical appropriateness and sustainability of telemedicine post-expansion has gained attention. We south to identify the most friendly and resistant specialties to telemedicine and to understand areas of interest within those specialties to grasp potential barriers to its use. Methods: We aimed to identify articles that incorporated telemedicine in any medical or surgical specialty and determine the adoption rate and intent of this new form of care. Additionally, a secondary search within these databases was conducted to analyze the advantages, disadvantages, and implementation of telemedicine in the healthcare system. Non-English articles and those without full text were excluded. The study selection and data collection process involved using search terms such as "medicine", "surgery", "specialties", "telemedicine", and "telemedicine". Key Content and Findings: Telemedicine adoption varies among specialties. The pandemic led to increased usage, with telemedicine consultations comprising 30.1% of all visits, but specialties like mental health, gastroenterology, and endocrinology showed higher rates of adoption compared to optometry, physical therapy, and orthopedic surgery. Conclusions: The data shows that telemedicine uptake varies by specialty and condition due to the need for physical exams. In-person visits still dominate new patient visits despite increased telemedicine use. Telemedicine cannot fully replace in-person care but has increased visit volume and is secure. The adoption of telemedicine is higher in medical practices than in surgical practices, with neurosurgery and urology leading. Further research is needed to assess telemedicine's suitability and effectiveness in different specialties and conditions.

Indexed as

digital healthsurgical specialtiesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID38689613
PMCPMC11058596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.