ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2025
Telehealth Is Effective in the Evaluation of Individuals With Undiagnosed Rare Disorders: An Undiagnosed Diseases Network Study.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to "Is the UDN N-of-1 Enterprise Ethically Justifiable?"AMA journal of ethics · 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
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with undiagnosed and/or rare disorders frequently manifest dysmorphic and neurological features. There is a lack of information on the effectiveness of telehealth in the evaluation of these disorders. We thus compared an unassisted virtual physical examination (PE) with an in-person PE in undiagnosed individuals and also assessed participant telehealth satisfaction. Twenty-six individuals enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network study underwent an in-home synchronous virtual PE, and a subsequent in-person PE, by the same clinician. The participants completed surveys on telehealth usability and provider empathy. On PE, general appearance and craniofacial features showed near perfect agreement (κ = 0.81-1.00) between the telehealth and in-person evaluations. Specific components of the neurological examination demonstrated substantial agreement (speech, gait, coordination; κ > 0.61), whereas others had moderate agreement (muscle tone, strength; κ = 0.41-0.60), and a few had none to slight agreement (skin; κ < 0.20). Some systems could not be examined in the virtual PE. Importantly, features relevant to diagnosis or management were missed on the virtual PE in only 2/26 individuals. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the telehealth interaction, as well as empathy demonstrated by providers in the virtual interface. Telehealth is effective for PEs in undiagnosed diseases and is acceptable to affected individuals.
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.