ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Telemedicine Physician Assessments on a Mobile Stroke Unit: Protocol for a Prospective Open-Label Blinded End-Point Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05991310 (Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Telemedicine Neurology Assessments on a Mobile Stroke Unit), which is not on this 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.
Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Telemedicine Neurology Assessments on a Mobile Stroke Unit
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Second Year In Review, Third Year In Preview, and the 2024Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile stroke units have been shown to deliver faster patient care and improve clinical outcomes. However, costs associated with staffing limit their use to densely populated cities. Using the Melbourne mobile stroke unit, we aim to evaluate the safety, timeliness, and resource efficiency of a telemedicine model, where the neurologist assesses a patient remotely, via telemedicine, compared with an onboard neurologist model. We hypothesize that, without compromising patient safety, the telemedicine model will provide timely care and superior resource efficiency.
methodsUsing a prospective, randomized, blinded end-point controlled design, 270 participants consecutively assessed on the Melbourne mobile stroke unit over ≈12 months will be assigned into 2 arms: (1) telemedicine neurologist assessment (intervention) versus (2) onboard assessment (comparator). Enrollment is based on prospectively designated randomized days of neurologist review onboard versus telemedicine. The primary outcome will be the odds that a randomly selected participant in the telemedicine arm will have a better outcome than a randomly selected participant in the onboard arm, measured using a desirability-of-outcome ranking, an outcome measure that includes, in order of importance: (1) safety, (2) scene-to-treatment-decision time metrics, and (3) resource usage. All participants within each arm will be compared with those in the other, resulting in a "win/tie/loss" distribution for telemedicine compared with the onboard model.
conclusionsThe study will establish whether use of a telemedicine neurologist delivers superior resource efficiency without compromising patient care. This would enable the broader use of mobile stroke units, particularly relevant to regions with limited access to neurologists, thus improving equity in access to time-critical, lifesaving stroke care. REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT05991310.
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.