ReviewVeterinary evidence
Clinical audit of POM-V / POM prescriptions by remote consultation via a veterinary video telemedicine smartphone application.
Review in Veterinary evidence. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying policy alternatives to enable the virtual establishment of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Comparing video examinations with physical clinical examinations using finishing pigs with umbilical outpouchings as a model.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 2023Article
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
There is an erratum to this paper published in Veterinary Evidence Vol 7, Issue 2 (2022): 10.18849/VE.V7I2.627. Objective: To assess outcomes of a limited period (7 months) of remote video consultation with prescribing of prescription-only (POM) or prescription-only-veterinary (POM-V) medications by Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) registered veterinary surgeons to UK clients via a veterinary telemedicine smartphone application. Background: Objective evidence is needed to inform the veterinary profession on the impact that remote prescribing, without physical examination in person, has on animal health and welfare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the RCVS allowed remote prescribing temporarily. Methods: Clinical records from all veterinary video consultations from 1 April-31 October 2020 were reviewed. Details were assessed pertaining to: signalment, body system / disease categories managed, referrals into practice, medication classes prescribed and outcomes following POM-V / POM medications. Records of adverse events and antimicrobial prescribing were reviewed. Results: 16.6% (3,541/21,383) of video consults had a POM-V / POM prescribed; with a (mild) adverse event rate of 0.8% (30/3541). Antibacterials were prescribed in 5.88% of all consultations (1,258/21,383), 99.3% (1249/1258) being first line. Follow-up on prescribing was available in 67.7% (2,399/3541) of cases. 89% (2135/2399) of all known treatment outcomes were complete or had an expected response to treatment. Dermatological disease was the most common body system / disease category seen and prescribed for. Conclusion: Low prescribing rates (including antibacterials) were recorded, treatments were efficacious and no harm was done by prescribing remotely via a veterinary video consult app. Custom Section: Veterinary surgeons and governing bodies are invited to use the information provided in this clinical audit to inform decisions on the suitability of remote consultations and prescribing in veterinary medicine.
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.