ArticlePloS one2026
Using instant messaging applications for consultations in the emergency department: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThis study investigates how consultants and consultees use Instant Messaging Applications (IMAs) during Emergency Department (ED) consultations, examining their attitudes toward these tools and assessing perceptions of existing consultation methods and the perceived need for system improvements.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among clinicians involved in Emergency Department consultations at the American University of Beirut Medical Center, Lebanon. Participants completed an online questionnaire assessing their demographics, consultation patterns, IMAs usage, and opinions on consultation modalities. The recruitment period was from 13/11/2023-08/11/2024.
resultsA total of 120 participants were included (65 consultants, 55 consultees). Consultants were significantly older than consultees (28.7 ± 3.4 vs. 26.6 ± 1.91 years, p < 0.001). While all consultees were residents, 64.6% of consultants were residents and 35.4% were fellows (p < 0.001). All participants reported using smartphones when on call (100%). IMAs were the most preferred consultation method overall (48.3%), followed by smartphone calls (32.5%). Consultants favored smartphone calls significantly more than consultees (49.2% vs. 12.7%, p < 0.001), whereas consultees preferred workstation phone calls (30.9% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). WhatsApp was the dominant IMA used (98.9%). During night shifts, consultants demonstrated a significantly greater reliance on smartphone calls than consultees (84.6% vs. 63.6%, p = 0.008). IMAs were among the most frequently used methods during both day and night calls (80% vs. 65.2%), and two-thirds of participants (63.7%) reported concerns regarding legal implications and the need for improved consultation tools.
conclusionThe findings highlight the need for structured and secure digital solutions to optimize communication between healthcare teams. With IMAs increasingly embedded in ED consultations, future work should focus on developing dedicated and potentially AI-supported platforms that enhance efficiency, documentation, and data security in clinical communication.
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.