ReviewCureus2025
Telemedicine-Based Virtual Stone Clinics for Renal Colic: Cost-Benefit Insights and Adoption Barriers.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Telemedicine in urology has gained substantial attention, accelerating in adoption due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential to bridge significant gaps in healthcare access, particularly given that 62% of U.S. counties lack a urologist. This narrative review outlines its applications, cost benefits, and adoption barriers. Studies demonstrate high patient satisfaction, especially for postoperative consultations and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tracking. Virtual care is highly effective for managing conditions like nephrolithiasis and benign ureteric colic; one quality improvement study focusing on ureteric colic successfully avoided 71.1% of face-to-face follow-ups while maintaining high safety and patient satisfaction (93.1%). The financial advantages are significant, with virtual stone clinics reducing waiting times and saving patients an average of $147 to $186 per visit by minimizing travel costs and time away from work. Despite these benefits, widespread adoption faces hurdles. Key challenges include a lack of patient trust in virtual sessions compared to in-person care, particularly among minority groups. Furthermore, technological barriers, such as inadequate digital literacy and a lack of broadband access, disproportionately affect elderly and ethnic minority populations, which risks exacerbating existing health disparities. Telemedicine is also limited by its unsuitability for conditions requiring a physical examination. Addressing these obstacles is essential to ensuring virtual care remains an affordable and equitable component of future healthcare.
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.