Systematic review of evidence for the benefits of telemedicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review of telemedicine assessments based on searches of electronic databases between 1966 and December 2000 identified 66 scientifically credible studies that included comparison with a non-telemedicine alternative and that reported administrative changes, patient outcomes, or results of economic assessment. Thirty-seven of the studies (56%) suggested that telemedicine had advantages over the alternative approach, 24 (36%) also drew attention to some negative aspects or were unclear whether telemedicine had advantages and five (8%) found that the alternative approach had advantages over telemedicine. The most convincing evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of telemedicine was given by some of the studies on teleradiology (especially neurosurgical applications), telemental health, transmission of echocardiographic images, teledermatology, home telecare and on some medical consultations. However, even in these applications, most of the available literature referred only to pilot projects and to short-term outcomes. Few papers considered the long-term or routine use of telemedicine. For several applications, including teleradiology, savings and sometimes clinical benefit were obtained through avoidance of travel and associated delays. Studies of home care and monitoring applications showed convincing evidence of benefit, while those on teledermatology indicated that there were cost disadvantages to health-care providers, although not to patients. Forty-four of the studies (67%) appeared to have potential to influence future decisions on the telemedicine application under consideration. However, a number of these had methodological limitations. Although useful clinical and economic outcomes data have been obtained for some telemedicine applications, good-quality studies are still scarce and the generalizability of most assessment findings is rather limited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".