ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
The use of communication applications in orthopaedics: a scoping review.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 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
backgroundEffective communication between clinicians is vital in orthopaedic practice, particularly in trauma and emergency care where optimal decision making is necessary. Although communication application use in orthopaedics is common within practice, there is little research to back up its ongoing use. This scoping review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on the use of clinician-to-clinician communication applications in orthopaedic practice, focusing on its prevalence, perceived utility, diagnostic reliability and associated challenges. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. This involved a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 2025. Studies involving clinician-to-clinician communication applications used within orthopaedic care were included. Data was extracted and synthesised using a methodological approach.
resultsSeven studies published between 2016 and 2023 were included. The evidence demonstrates widespread adoption of communication applications, particularly WhatsApp, for informal clinical communication, with consistent perceptions that these platforms improve communication efficiency and coordination of care. Four studies evaluating smartphone transmitted radiographic images reported good to excellent intraobserver diagnostic agreement when compared with Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS). Significant limitations were also identified, including reduced image quality, physical usability constraints and inconsistent documentation resulting in substantial patient data governance and confidentiality concerns.
conclusionCommunication applications function as informal adjuncts to clinical communication in orthopaedic practice, driven by clinical necessity. While they support rapid consultation and decision making, their use remains limited by governance, data security, and integration challenges. Future efforts should focus on developing clinician centred communication systems that align usability with regulatory compliance, enabling safe and structured integration into orthopaedic care pathways.
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.