ArticleBMJ neurology open2026
REMOTE-Neuro: co-produced recommendations to optimise remote neurology.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine stakeholder experiences of remote neurology outpatient care and to co-produce an evidence-based framework to support safe, equitable and sustainable service delivery. Methods: We undertook an inductive thematic analysis of free-text responses from three national surveys: a patient and carer survey conducted by the Neurological Alliance (2021; n=2463) and two surveys of neurologists conducted by the Association of British Neurologists (2020 and 2021; n=593). Findings were validated through co-production workshops and interviews with patients, carers and healthcare professionals in 2024 (n=43). Themes were triangulated and refined to generate stakeholder-endorsed recommendations. Results: Participants valued flexible choice in consultation modality, recognising the accessibility and convenience of remote care, but expressed concerns about clinical quality, privacy and equity. Both patients and clinicians viewed remote care as a distinct skill set requiring tailored training and stronger digital infrastructure. Importantly, some participants perceived remote appointments as less legitimate than in-person consultations, a novel and under-recognised challenge with implications for engagement and health equity. Five domains aligned with National Health Service (NHS) transformation principles were identified: (1) patient-centred care, (2) neurology and specialist area considerations, (3) clinical safety and quality, (4) capacity and sustainability and (5) operational efficiency. These findings informed the REcommendations for optimising Modality, Operational efficiency, Training and Equity in NEUROlogy (REMOTE-Neuro) framework. Conclusions: Remote care continues to offer significant benefits to both patients and clinicians. However, several years postpandemic, there are still unresolved issues which limit its effective integration with face-to-face care. Practice implications: REMOTE-Neuro provides a co-produced set of recommendations to optimise remote neurology practice. Grounded in over 3000 stakeholder perspectives and aligned with NHS transformation priorities, it offers a practical roadmap for implementation in neurology and a transferable model for other specialties.
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.