ArticleCureus2025
One-Year Review of Novel "Virtual" Pneumonia Follow-Up Clinic a Decade From Inception.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Follow-up after pneumonia is essential to detect underlying malignancies and identify residual complications. In 2013, the University Hospitals of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust implemented a novel virtual pneumonia clinic (VPC) to reduce outpatient burden while maintaining clinical standards by providing remote consultant-led follow-up for patients with pneumonia. This study reviews the service a decade after its inception. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of all referrals to the VPC between January 2022 and January 2023. Data on demographics, referral source, imaging outcomes, time to follow-up, and final diagnoses were collected. Patients were stratified by age and smoking status, and outcomes such as attendance, residual abnormalities, and diagnostic escalation were analysed. Results A total of 891 patients were referred during the 12 months, representing a threefold increase since the service's inception. Overall, 78.0% attended their convalescent chest X-ray (CXR), with the highest yield of abnormalities seen in patients over 80. Residual radiographic abnormalities were identified in 6.6% of attendees, including lung cancer, pneumonia-related scarring, pleural effusion, and bronchiectasis. The mean time to follow-up CXR was 51.0 days (interquartile range (IQR): 35-63). Referrals were predominantly from respiratory and emergency teams. Based on these findings, referral criteria have been refined to target patients over 50 or those with persistent symptoms or respiratory risk factors. Discussion The VPC model has demonstrated both clinical efficacy and operational efficiency. Consultant time was reduced by 92%, with an estimated per-patient cost saving of £200. Broader NHS and international evidence support virtual models in reducing hospital utilisation, environmental impact, and increasing patient satisfaction. Results The VPC continues to provide a scalable, sustainable model of care, combining diagnostic vigilance with outpatient efficiency. Our findings support replication across other NHS trusts and healthcare systems seeking to enhance post-discharge follow-up while managing resources effectively.
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.