Trial reportPlastic and reconstructive surgery2026
3D Telemedicine Outperforms 2D Telemedicine: A Randomized Crossover Trial in Reconstructive Plastic Surgery.
Trial report in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA key barrier to adoption of telemedicine is patient preference for in-person consultations. To address this, an immersive 3-dimensional (3D) telemedicine system was codeveloped with patients to improve the realism, quality, and patient experience of remote consultations, and the benefits were assessed in this randomized trial.
methodsEighty patients were recruited from the Canniesburn Plastic Surgery Unit, UK to a randomized crossover trial of 3D versus 2-dimensional (2D) telemedicine consultations in 2022 and 2023. The primary outcome was presence using the Presence scale, which measured how closely a remote consultation resembled an in-person consultation. Secondary outcomes included the validated Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ), the Mental Effort Rating Scale, and satisfaction scales.
resultsThe Presence score for 3D telemedicine was significantly higher than that for 2D telemedicine ( P < 0.001). Secondary outcomes also were superior for 3D telemedicine, including TUQ score ( P < 0.001), mental effort ( P < 0.001), and satisfaction ( P < 0.001). Age, deprivation, education, sex, and technology familiarity were not associated with any outcome measures, indicating inclusivity of the 3D technology. Subjective interviews indicated that 3D telemedicine, by virtue of allowing annotation and drawing on the patients' own 3D model, aided understanding of complex surgery, allowing a more personalized medicine approach in the consent process.
conclusions3D telemedicine improves the realism, interaction quality, and experience of remote consultations relative to 2D telemedicine, with significantly higher presence and TUQ scores. Three-dimensional telemedicine more closely mimics reality, which may help overcome barriers to adoption related to patients' preference for in-person consultations.
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.