Pilot trial of telemedicine in urology: Video vs. telephone consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the past year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person clinical activities have been drastically restricted, driving the already growing interest in the use of telemedicine in the urban setting to reduce unnecessary commute. Therefore, there has been a rapid shift to telephone and video consultations in outpatient practice. We sought to conduct a pilot trial to establish feasibility and acceptability of video consultations as an alternative to telephone consultations in urology patients to inform the design of a future randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, non-randomized pilot trial comparing telephone consultations (TC) vs. video consultations (VC) for urology outpatient visits. Two patient questionnaires were used to collect demographic information, as well as data about acceptability, feasibility, satisfaction, cost, and issues with telemedicine. Questions were identical for both VC and TC except for certain questions inquiring about issues specific to each technology. RESULTS: Forty-eight TC and 66 VC urology patients were included in this study. Patients believed that telemedicine visits did not significantly hinder their ability to communicate with their urologists and that these visits would be associated with cost savings. There was 1/48 (2.1%) failed TC and 16/66 (24.2%) failed VC. VC failures were concentrated at the beginning of the trial prior to giving feedback to the VC platform creators, with only one failure occurring thereafter. When comparing TC to VC, differences between the two patient groups were small but tended to be in favor of VC. Patients' satisfaction was greater with VC compared to TC. Both modalities were associated with many cost benefits for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more technical issues with VC, this modality is feasible and acceptable to patients, likely due to improved shared decision-making with VC. Future considerations for trials comparing VC and TC should include adequate Wi-Fi infrastructure and choice of platform. For the VC, continuous knowledge transfer between investigators and platform engineers plays an important role in limiting failed encounters.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".