SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024
Online video versus face-to-face patient-surgeon consultation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceptions of simulated artificial intelligence in medical consultations: associations with stress, memory, and perceived credibility.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Remote active surveillance following tibial plateau leveling osteotomy: a preliminary study of patellar tendinitis in dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Physicians' Perceptions of AI and Extended Reality in Telemedicine: A Multi-Specialty Cross-Sectional Survey in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline video consultation (OVC) is increasingly used in patient-surgeon pre-surgical and follow-up consultation but a comprehensive review assessing its benefits and downsides as compared to face-to-face (F2F) consultation is currently lacking. This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of OVC as compared to F2F consultation.
methodsA literature search (Ovid/Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics/Web of Science Core Collection) was conducted including studies comparing efficacy, patient and surgeon satisfaction, and information recall between OVC and F2F patient-surgeon consultation (inception-December 4, 2023).
resultsOut of 1021 studies, 14 studies with 13,564 patients met the eligibility criteria, consisting of seven RCTs, three prospective, and four retrospective studies. Various types of surgical consultations were evaluated, including new referrals, routine follow-ups, postoperative follow-ups, and mixed consultations (both pre- and postoperative). None of the randomized trials exclusively compared OVC with F2F consultations in the high-demand preoperative setting, or assessed patient information recall. Efficacy outcomes were reported by seven studies. Among these, three RCTs showed that OVC improved efficacy in terms of waiting time (8.2 vs. 20.7 min, P = 0.01) and total appointment time (24 vs 71 min, P = 0.001, and 21.9 vs. 154.8 min, P = 0.001). Patient satisfaction was reported by 10 studies. Regarding patient satisfaction, one "mixed design" study favoured OVC (92% vs. 63%, P = 0.04), while eight studies reported similar outcomes.
conclusionsThis systematic review identified some benefits of OVC such as shorter waiting and total appointment times as compared to F2F patient-surgeon consultation, although the true value of OVC remains unknown due to the limited available evidence. Future pragmatic RCTs are needed, which should include the pre-surgical consultation and assess patient information recall.
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.