SynthesisPsychiatry and clinical neurosciences2025
Diagnosis and symptom assessment in telepsychiatry vs. face-to-face settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTelepsychiatry is increasingly integral to psychiatric practice. However, few reviews have examined the concordance between assessments conducted in telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the agreement between telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of various psychiatric disorders.
methodsA literature search was conducted using MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Studies evaluating the concordance between telepsychiatric and face-to-face settings in the diagnosis and symptom assessment of various psychiatric disorders were included and analyzed.
resultsOf the 6875 studies in the initial search, 22 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in the analyses. The diagnostic concordance for 16 psychiatric disorders was "almost perfect" between the two settings (N = 16, n = 848, Cohen's κ = 0.824, confidence interval [CI] = 0.466 to 0.950, P < 0.001). Additionally, the concordance for the symptom rating scales between the two settings ranged from "substantial" in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (N = 1, n = 533, Cohen's κ = 0.789, CI = 0.699 to 0.855, P < 0.001) to "almost perfect" in the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (N = 1, n = 92, intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.943, CI = 0.798 to 0.985, P < 0.001).
conclusionsTelepsychiatry is highly concordant with face-to-face settings regarding psychiatric diagnoses and symptom assessment. In contrast, the present results also suggest that the suitability of telepsychiatry varies across disease types, specific symptoms, and assessment modalities. Although the present results must be interpreted with caution owing to the small number of studies for each assessment and disease, our findings suggest that telepsychiatry may have greater utility in psychiatric diagnostic assessment settings.
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.