ReviewClinical rheumatology2026
Evaluation of a rural telerheumatology service in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan: patient and physician experience.
Review in Clinical rheumatology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Between April 2022 and April 2023, our group conducted a pilot telerheumatology service. Physicians at a major rheumatology centre in Islamabad consulted for patients in a rural centre in the Gilgit-Baltistan region. To better understand both the patient and physician experience from this telerheumatology service, we conducted surveys of patients who participated in our program, as well as the three rheumatologists who provided telerheumatology services in this program. Of 218 respondents, 125 (57.3%) were female, and 195 (89.4%) were Balti in ethnicity. The average respondent age was 47 ± 15 years. Satisfaction among patients was gauged on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, and the median scores (95% confidence interval) were: usefulness 4 (4.25-4.42), ability to communicate effectively 4 (3.59-3.84), overall satisfaction with consultation 4 (4.16-4.33), perceived health improvement 5 (4.53-4.68), and intention to re-consult 5 (4.73-4.85). Provider satisfaction was moderate, with network instability and language barriers cited as major concerns. Providers expressed satisfaction in being able to care for otherwise inaccessible patients. Despite limited resources, and in the absence of specialist care in the Gilgit-Baltistan region, our telerheumatology program achieved high patient satisfaction and moderate provider satisfaction, demonstrating the potential of telemedicine to improve access to care in underserved rural regions. Addressing communication barriers and technical limitations will be crucial for optimizing the impact of such programmes in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41364177What 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.