Trial reportAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2025
Satisfaction with telemedicine versus in-person visits in rheumatology: a noninferiority randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 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.
- Expansion of Access to Rheumatology Care for Rural Veterans: Program Development and Initial Feasibility of the National Tele-Rheumatology Program Using the RE-AIM Framework.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe tested whether a rheumatology telemedicine visit was noninferior to an in-person visit for patient satisfaction and care effectiveness, including for subgroups of age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, and employment status.
methodsThis multicenter noninferiority trial randomised patients to 1 in-person or telemedicine visit. The primary outcome was the proportion of high visit satisfaction (9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale). The primary analysis tested whether patient satisfaction with telemedicine was noninferior to in-person care (10% noninferiority margin). Secondary and exploratory outcomes included preference for next visit type, satisfaction in subgroups, and immunosuppressant toxicity monitoring. We performed modified intent-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses.
resultsAmong 651 randomised patients (in-person, n = 323; telemedicine n = 328), 500 (76.8%) had a visit defining the mITT population. Satisfaction with telemedicine was not noninferior to in-person; 77.0% telemedicine, 90.1% in-person, difference 13.1% (90% CI, 7.7%-18.5%). Per-protocol analysis results were consistent. More participants in the in-person group compared with those in telemedicine preferred the same visit type for their next visit vs a different visit type/no preference (55.6% in-person, 19.1% telemedicine, P < .0001, mITT analysis). Men were equally satisfied with both visit types (90.0%), while women were more likely to be satisfied with in-person visits (90.2% vs 74.7%). Toxicity monitoring rates were higher in in-person vs telemedicine (eg, hepatic function: 92.1% vs 66.3%, P = .0001, per-protocol analysis).
conclusionsAmong a large group of diverse patients, satisfaction with telemedicine was not noninferior to in-person rheumatology visits. More participants preferred in-person visits in the mITT and per-protocol analyses. Appropriate toxicity monitoring was lower in telemedicine vs in-person groups.
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.