SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2026
Patient safety measures for virtual consultations in primary care: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- By the book or beyond? Lessons on implementation fidelity in remote patient monitoring within a hybrid hospital-at-home feasibility study.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Trial
- Partially Virtual vs In-Person Care in Cardiovascular Conditions-Time Trends, Patient Characteristics, and Medication Management: Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Ethical Challenges and Implications of Telemedicine Implementation in Saudi Primary Healthcare: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Outcomes of Structured Medication Reviews for Selected Patients in the English National Health Service.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith the growing adoption of virtual consultations in primary care, the need for tailored metrics to evaluate their safety became increasingly urgent. This systematic review seeks to identify and review existing safety measures that could be used for safety evaluation of virtual consultations in primary care.
methodsThis has been conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and followed a published protocol. A systematic literature search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from 2014 to 2024. Studies comparing virtual consultations with face-to-face consultations in the primary care setting were included. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to systematically extract and group the safety measures into overarching themes, with a narrative synthesis to summarise the results.
resultsA total of 47 studies (31 experimental and 16 observational studies) were included (n=2 223 697 patients). All studies assessed the safety of virtual versus face-to-face consultations via one or both of the following domains: (1) factors that influence the safety of virtual consultations and (2) tangible outcomes of virtual care safety. The former were categorised into provider-related, patient-related and system-related factors. Tangible outcomes were evident through three subthemes-adverse events, health outcomes and patient perception of safety.
conclusionsThis review provides a systematic synthesis of measures for the safety evaluation of virtual consultations. Further research into patient and physician perspectives is needed to identify aspects and indicators not captured in this study, followed by a consensus study to finalise safety metrics. Ultimately, having a robust methodology for safety evaluation of virtual consultations in place will enable safety monitoring, root cause analyses and safety improvement. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42023464878.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.