ArticleiScience2025
Development and evaluation of an international teleproctoring program for bronchoscopic procedures.
Article in iScience, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical procedures often require proctoring that is traditionally done face-to-face, but this poses a significant carbon footprint and logistical challenges. Little is known about the safety and efficacy of remote "tele"proctoring, particularly in the respiratory field. The aim was to develop, implement, and evaluate a teleproctoring program for bronchoscopy procedures. Seventy-eight targeted lung denervation procedures were performed at UK hospitals; 20 with teleproctoring, with real-time multimodality data streaming to an off-site proctor; and 58 with on-site proctoring. Procedure completion, procedure duration (bronchoscopy, anesthetic, and fluoroscopy), and safety outcomes (adverse events and device deficiencies) were compared between groups. Teleproctoring offered a safe alternative to on-site proctoring, with little difference in completion rates, procedure durations or safety outcomes. Teleproctoring could be a cost-effective, sustainable and efficient alternative to face-to-face proctoring in appropriate centers. Further work could expand this system to allow remote expert advice to facilitate procedures in clinical practice, and for procedural teaching.
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.