Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42064321›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2026

Comparing audiovisual visit and in-person visit note quality.

Harry B Burke, Albert Hoang, Heidi King, Joseph Benich, Brandon Brown, Christopher Bunt, Sean Haley, Paul Hemmer, William Kelly, Renee Mallory and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Harry B BurkeGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Albert HoangGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Heidi KingGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Joseph BenichGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Brandon BrownGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Christopher BuntGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Sean HaleyGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Paul HemmerGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
William KellyGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Renee MalloryGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Louis PangaroGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Wendy ShenGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.
Viktoria GagarinGeorge Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, 20037, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The pandemic dramatically increased in the frequency of audiovisual medical visits and the rate of audiovisual visits remains higher than before the pandemic. These visits have the potential to be an important clinical modality. Researchers have assessed several aspects of audiovisual visits but they have not investigated their clinical note quality. The goal of this study is to determine the quality of audiovisual and in-person clinical notes and to compare their quality. Methods: From a population of 1660 established outpatient primary care type 2 diabetic patient visits occurring in 2021 we randomly selected 100 audiovisual and 100 in-person visits. QNOTE, a validated instrument that measures clinical note quality, was used by 7 experienced primary care physicians to assess 4 key elements of the clinical note: the chief complaint, history of present illness, assessment, and plan. Results: The mean quality scores (out of 100) and their standard deviations (SD) were: overall, audiovisual 75.8 (SD 9.6), in-person 86.5 (SD 4.4), Conclusion: Audiovisual visits demonstrated a lower note quality than in-person visits. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the quality of audiovisual visit notes and compare them to the quality of in-person visit notes.

Indexed as

audiovisual visitclinical noteclinical qualityin-person visitoutpatient visitpatient safetyphysician-patient interactionQNOTEquality of caretelehealthtelemedicinevirtual healthvirtual visit

Identifiers

PMID42064321
PMCPMC13127419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.