ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Telemedicine applications in general medicine - a structured review of the evidence.
Review in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Telemedicine (TM) in general practice has declined following the pandemic. One reason is deemed to be the lack of clear evidence regarding the quality of care provided by TM. Therefore, the aim of this review, was to systematically present the existing evidence concerning the use of TM applications in general practice. Methods: This structured review includes randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies with a control group. The literature search targeted the time period from 2011 to 2025, screened by two researchers who focused in particular on medical efficacy, economic effects, and patient experiences. Results: The searches in the PubMed and Cochrane databases yielded 488 publications (30 June 2025). After filtering out duplicates and performing multi-step screening (title, abstract and full text), 22 studies were included in the final analysis. Over 50% of these studies found positive significant effects in the clinical outcomes. Over 80% of the included studies entailed asynchronous applications and 95% of the studies observed a time period of 12 months or less. The studies focused primarily on chronic somatic diseases, including diabetes mellitus type 2, hypertension and heart failure. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that there is evidence supporting the use of telemedicine in general practice. However, the majority of the studies focused on diseases that are not among the most common reasons for encounter and had a rather short follow-up observation period. The fact that the studies were not initiated by the specialty itself is the most likely explanation for these findings. There was no evidence that TM causes (significant) worsening of outcomes in the conditions addressed in the included studies.
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.