ArticlePloS one2025
Patient safety indicators for virtual consultations in primary care: A systematic review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient safety measures for virtual consultations in primary care: a systematic review.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Pooled it
- From Data to Decision: Design and Evaluation of a Patient Safety Dashboard.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
- Patient Safety Indicator Sets: Prioritization, Decision-Making Considering Healthcare Resilience, and Implementation Success.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
backgroundVirtual consultations are being increasingly incorporated into routine primary care, as they offer better time and geographical flexibility for patients while also being cost-effective for both patients and service providers. At the same time, concerns have been raised about the extent to which virtual care is safe for patients. As of now, there is no validated methodology for evaluating the safety nuances and implications of virtual care. This study aims to identify patient safety indicators that could be used to evaluate the safety of virtual consultations in primary care.
methodsA literature search will be performed in Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published over the last 10 years (2014-2024). The systematic review will include randomized and non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies with adult populations that compare synchronous patient-provider virtual consultations (telephone or video) or multicomponent interventions involving synchronous remote consultations with face-to-face consultations. The outcome of interest will be patient safety indicators extracted from the studies. The quality of randomized controlled trials will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to analyze risk of bias in observational studies. DISCUSSION: Considering the growing adoption of virtual medical care worldwide, a robust and comprehensive evaluation of its safety and quality is now a system-wide priority. Therefore, one of the primary strengths of this proposed systematic review is its focus on a topic of great importance and timeliness, specifically addressing the existing knowledge gap in this area. By publishing this protocol, we demonstrate the transparency and reliability of our research strategy and aim to minimize the risk of selection bias. Potential limitations include the heterogeneity of measures and outcomes, as well as a lower-than-expected number of studies in subgroup analyses, which may negatively influence the statistical significance in data synthesis.
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42023464878.
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.