ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Comparison of Short-Term Health Care Utilization Between Telemedicine-Delivered vs In-Person Care Visits for Heart Failure.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing audiovisual visit and in-person visit note quality.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Offering in-home video visits: a descriptive national survey of interprofessional clinicians across Veterans Health Administration.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Telemedicine and Primary Care Access: A Cross-sectional Observational Study of Patients Using Only Telemedicine.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Observational
- Telemedicine-Delivered Primary Care in Heart Failure: Promises and Pitfalls of Real-World Data.JACC. Advances · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) are a medically complex population with frequent hospitalizations. Downstream health care utilization following primary care delivered by telemedicine compared to in-person is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to understand differences in return in-person visits, emergency department (ED) encounters, and hospitalizations following a telemedicine vs an in-person primary care visit for patients with HF seen for a HF-related complaint. Methods: This was an observational study of all primary care visits for HF from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, in an integrated health care delivery system. We compared 7-day in-person follow-up visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations (all-cause and HF-specific) by index visit type. Results: We included 3,902 primary care visits with a primary diagnosis of HF. Most visits utilized telephone or video visits (58.4% total; 44.9% telephone, 13.5% video). After adjustment, telephone visits were associated with more in-person follow-up visits (6.14% vs 4.20%; adjusted OR: 1.08-2.21; Conclusions: Most patients used telemedicine to address HF-specific primary care concerns. Telephone visits were associated with slightly higher short-term in-person primary care follow-up but lower ED utilization. Overall, downstream ED visits and hospitalizations were low. Telephone and video visits appear to offer safe alternatives to in-person care for HF-related primary care and are a promising health care delivery strategy.
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.