ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Virtual Telephone Consultations Against Traditional Face-to-Face Consultations in Spine Surgery Using an Objective Metric.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proved to be a catalyst in the paradigm change from face-to-face (F2F) to virtual consultations in trauma and orthopaedics. This study evaluates the efficacy of telephone consultations versus F2F reviews in an elective spine clinic.
methodsIn this retrospective study, the clinic letters from elective spinal clinics were conducted over one month. Patients with lumbar spine pathology were included, divided into telephone and F2F groups, and further categorized into new referrals and follow-ups. The Ashford Clinic Letter Score (ACLS) was used to assess the efficacy of consultations. Results: Out of 126 spinal patients reviewed, 92 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 47 were F2F and 45 were telephone consultations. The mean satisfaction scores for all patients were 7.60 for F2F and 7.42 for telephone consultations, with no significant difference (p=0.202). New patient satisfaction scores were 7.64 for F2F and 7.35 for telephone (p=0.284), and follow-up scores were 7.58 for F2F and 7.48 for telephone (p=0.530). The results showed that there was no difference between face-to-face and virtual consultations.
conclusionTelephone consultations are nearly as effective as F2F consultations in elective spine clinics, particularly for follow-up patients. The findings support the viability of telemedicine as an economical and efficient alternative method instead of traditional F2F consultations in orthopaedic practice. Further research is needed to explore patient satisfaction and outcomes in other spinal pathologies and to optimise patient stratification for telemedicine.
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.