MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048840153 · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001440

Cochrane in CORR ®–Interactive Telemedicine: Effects on Professional Practice and Health Care Outcomes

2020· article· en· W3048840153 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Rubinger, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineMedicineHealth careMEDLINERandomized controlled trialMedical emergencyPatient satisfactionSports medicineEvidence-based medicineNursingMedical educationAlternative medicinePhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance of the Topic The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the use and implementation of interactive telemedicine technologies, which are platforms that allow clinicians and patients to exchange information and communicate in real-time [6]. This trend has impacted all specialties of medicine, including orthopaedic surgery [2, 8, 14, 17–19]. However, the flood of fast-tracked papers relating to COVID-19, with discussions surrounding the validity of these rapidly produced manuscripts [12], can cloud clinicians’ decision-making when implementing telemedicine. Further, the use of these rapidly developing technologies is arguably premature, and can potentially be harmful when implemented without evidence to support their safety and efficacy. The drive to implement telemedicine comes from its potential to improve patient access to care, health outcomes, and reduce healthcare costs; however, remote technology-based patient care is not a one-size-fits-all solution for all medical and surgical conditions. Each condition presents unique hurdles that the patient, provider, and technology must overcome, including difficulty with and resistance to fitting telemedicine into routine practice, complications in the interaction between healthcare professionals, inconsistent patient satisfaction, patient (lack of) access to internet, and ethical concerns [15]. In a Cochrane review from 2015, Flodgren and colleagues [11], investigated the efficacy, costs, and acceptability of interactive telemedicine as an alternative, or in addition to, usual care across all medical specialties. Ninety-three randomized controlled trials were included (22,047 participants). The authors found that interactive telemedicine in the management of chronic health conditions was equivalent to usual practice, but the cost implications and acceptability from patients and healthcare practitioners has not yet been elucidated. Upon Closer Inspection This Cochrane review discusses results that are of particular interest to orthopaedic surgeons and has implications on their future practice. As the abstract describes, the quality of evidence in telemedicine domain is high, however, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the patient populations, healthcare practitioners, and types of interactive telemedicine interventions included. Most of the studies included in this Cochrane review pertained to heart failure and diabetes, with the bulk of interventions dealing with monitoring and/or providing treatment of chronic conditions, which provide little direct insight into the impact of telemedicine on patients with musculoskeletal injuries. Further, this review did not cover issues surrounding access to internet and telemedicine, or the ethics of providing care through telemedicine. Only two studies included orthopaedic patients [13, 23]. These papers investigated participants attending outpatient clinics for a variety of specialty consultations or minor procedures and found no difference in patient satisfaction between telemedicine and face-to-face consultations, but reported more investigations ordered, higher healthcare costs, and decreased costs borne by the patient when care was provided via telemedicine. No patients with musculoskeletal injuries were included from a postoperative or rehabilitation perspective. Still, there are included studies that can be extrapolated to the orthopaedic populations; they reported no difference in outcomes of patients undergoing immediate postoperative telemedicine assessments in solid organ transplant recipients [16], and for urological surgeries [9, 10]. While this Cochrane review concludes that interactive telemedicine works well in the monitoring of chronic conditions (although it is more expensive than “usual care”), it is our opinion that the several studies directly relevant to the practicing orthopaedic surgeon together can validate increased usage of telemedicine technologies in preoperative consultations and post-operative rounding/assessments of our patients. Since this review has been completed, there has been a large expansion in the orthopaedic-specific evidence about telemedicine, in large part because of COVID-19, that likely necessitates an updated review of the literature. Randomized controlled trials have shown no change in patient satisfaction in remote orthopaedic consultations with both patient and systems cost savings [3, 4], and decreased length-of-stay in fast-tracked patients with total hip replacement [22]. Additional lower quality evidence has been published in various orthopaedic subspecialty patient populations such as pediatric and adult fractures [5, 20], spine [21], patients with long-term musculoskeletal injuries [7], and sports medicine [1], with generally positive results pertaining to patient outcomes and satisfaction, ultimately further validating uptake of telemedicine in clinical practice. Take-home Messages There is promising evidence presented in this Cochrane review, and otherwise, to support the continued uptake of telemedicine technologies in the orthopaedic world. In the proper settings, orthopaedic patients can be safely be assessed pre and postoperatively through interactive telemedicine technologies, with maintained patient satisfaction. Nonetheless, in a world with rapidly increasing demand for telemedicine solutions to provide musculoskeletal care, whether it be caused by a global pandemic or otherwise, our specialty needs to proceed with caution. Given the breadth of patients and clinical problems that orthopaedic surgeons manage on a daily basis, it is difficult to make generalizable, or blanket statements about the safety, efficacy, and cost-nature of telemedicine in orthopaedics. The need for prospective research data that are specific to different orthopaedic patient populations, clinical problems, and type of telemedicine utilized to deliver care to ultimately improve patient care and practice management cannot be overstated. In addition, there are numerous stakeholders whose needs one must consider prior to executing and interpreting future studies on this topic. The various stakeholders include: patients, physicians and surgeons, physio- and occupational therapists, health system management, and society as a whole. Disease-specific outcome measures, patient satisfaction, healthcare professional workflow and efficiency, cost-effectiveness (from patient and system perspectives) and cost-utility must all be considered. In the case where the use of telemedicine is necessary or potentially helpful, upon integration into their practice, surgeons should make every attempt to gather data and feedback about the telemedicine system used in real time, through patient surveys, interpreting costing data, and following patient outcomes, to understand its impact on their patients, and on the healthcare systems in which they practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.451 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207