ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2026
Feasibility of portable telemedicine devices for ambulance-based prehospital triage: a comparative simulation study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 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
backgroundVideo-based telemedicine can improve prehospital triage. However, it is unclear which portable device enabling a real-time specialist consultation via two-way video and audio connection in dynamic emergency medical service environments should be used. This feasibility study identified the most suitable portable telemedicine device for prehospital triage.
methodsFour simulated stroke-like scenarios were conducted with ambulance professionals and remote vascular neurologists. Three portable telemedicine devices were tested: two head-mounted assisted-reality devices (RealWear Navigator ™ 520, Vuzix M400) and a smartphone using Siilo Messenger application. Feasibility was evaluated through structured surveys from both user groups and a patient actor. Quantitative data were analysed using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with stakeholder-derived criterion weights to generate overall value scores and device ranking.
resultsOut of 47 analysed surveys, the Vuzix head-mounted device achieved the highest overall value score (0.80), followed by Siilo Messenger smartphone application (0.77) and RealWear head-mounted device (0.73). Ambulance professionals prioritised usability, favouring the smartphone application, whereas neurologists emphasised video quality, favouring Vuzix head-mounted device. Qualitative feedback highlighted trade-offs: head-mounted devices offered hands-free use but required peripherals and hindered patient interaction, while smartphones were intuitive but limited by video quality and image stability.
conclusionsDevice suitability for prehospital telemedicine depends on balancing technical performance with usability. The smartphone-based application provides practical solution for early implementation, while head-mounted devices may be preferable when hands-free operation and video quality are critical. Future research should assess their clinical and operational impact to enable safe and scalable implementation.
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.