SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
The clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction of the virtual fracture clinic in the UK: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVirtual fracture clinics (VFCs) have been proposed as an efficacious alternative to face-to-face (FTF) fracture clinics. Better usage of clinical time and resources, increased accessibility, decreased patient wait times and reduced cost may be advantages of the VFC. This study aims to assess the clinical efficacy and patient satisfaction of the VFC in the UK since introduced in 2011 and determine whether VFCs should become the leading pathway for acute traumatic orthopaedic (ATO) care.
methodsA systematic review of studies from 2011 up to April 2025 was conducted, identifying all relevant literature to the safety and efficacy of VFCs. MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched according to our search strategy. Systematic screening and application of our inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in twenty-five included studies. These studies included: retrospective cohort studies, case series and interrupted time series, prospective and cross-sectional cohort studies, closed loop audits and service evaluations. Key clinical efficacy outcomes assessed included: VFC discharge rates, adherence to BOAST 72-h guidelines, missed injuries, inappropriate referrals/radiographs, reattendances, and the number of FTF fracture clinic follow ups following VFC review. Additional outcomes assessed were patient reported outcome measures and patient satisfaction data.
resultsA cohort of 63,367 patients contributed to the clinical efficacy summative outcomes. VFCs reported an 83.6% mean compliance rate with British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma 72-h guidelines, compared to 5.7% for FTF fracture clinics. VFCs make minimal diagnostic errors and as a result reported a low mean reattendance rate following discharge of 4.9%. Patients have good health outcomes, a high mean satisfaction rate of 85.4% for VFCs and prefer them to FTF fracture clinics.
conclusionThis systematic review demonstrates that VFCs are highly efficacious in managing ATO patients in the UK and that patients are satisfied with their care. VFCs outperform FTF fracture clinics and could become the standard pathway for management of ATO injuries across the UK in the future. In the meantime, further research is needed to validate these comparisons between VFCs and FTF fracture clinics to definitively conclude that VFCs should become the leading pathway.
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.