ArticleFamily practice2026
Evaluation of an interdisciplinary electronic consultation service between general practitioners and medical specialists in The Netherlands: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Family practice, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) frequently encounter complex cases that require specialist input. Traditionally, this support is sought via telephone consultations, which are often constrained by time and availability, or through initiating a hospital referral. Interdisciplinary electronic consultations enable timely specialist advice while possibly reducing unnecessary referrals. Though prior research has shown promising outcomes for e-consultations, evidence remains limited, particularly from healthcare systems where GPs act as gatekeepers, such as in The Netherlands. It is also unclear whether similar benefits apply across other hospital departments.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate how GPs in a Dutch healthcare setting used e-consultations across multiple hospital departments, focusing on both the content of the consultations and their impact on referral decisions.
methodsWe analyzed 2183 e-consultations submitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre between 2019 and 2022, with at least 24 months of data collected per department. Consultations were categorized by topic, and referral outcomes were assessed-specifically avoided versus additional referrals prompted by the e-consult.
resultsE-consultations were used across all departments and addressed a wide range of clinical questions, most commonly related to diagnosis, diagnostic testing, and pharmacological treatment. In surgical departments, questions more often concerned general advice. Overall, 36.8% were avoided, while 11.9% additional referrals followed the e-consult. Avoided referral rates ranged from 32.6% in Pediatrics to 49.0% in Urology.
conclusionE-consultations support GPs in managing clinical uncertainty and may reduce unnecessary referrals, particularly when tailored to departmental contexts.
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.