SynthesisBMC health services research2025
A systematic review of methods used for COVID-19 telehealth systems evaluation: lessons from past experiences for future use.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stakeholder Perspectives on Health System Readiness for Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Public Health in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Reporting of Telehealth Implementation in Cystic Fibrosis: Scoping Review Using a Novel Theory-Based Evaluation Lens.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
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
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 emergency, telehealth systems were rapidly designed and integrated into healthcare delivery frameworks. The main question is whether these systems have been adequately evaluated and whether they are worthy of entering the health service cycle. Thus, this study's objective was to critically analyze the literature on remote health systems developed in response to COVID-19, focusing specifically on the evaluation approaches used.
methodsThe present investigation was executed in 2024, focusing on literature published over five years following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, extending until January 2024. Comprehensive searches were conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. A team of four researchers systematically evaluated and critically appraised relevant articles. Subsequently, the extracted data underwent rigorous analysis, comparison, and reporting to distill key findings.
resultsOverall, 26 articles met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the predominant objective of evaluations was to examine system performance (n = 8, 30.77%). Also, the methodology used in most evaluations was Qualitative and quantitative (non-integrated) (n = 18, 69.23%). In terms of evaluation period, most evaluations were summative (n = 12,46.15%), and the evaluator population in most systems was the healthcare team (n = 14, 53.85%).
conclusionsGiven the COVID-19 emergency conditions, evaluations of telehealth systems have not been conducted systematically and with adequate methods, tools, and populations. Therefore, appropriate systems should be designed and adequately evaluated for future epidemics. Ultimately, the proactive and comprehensive design and evaluation of telehealth systems will create infrastructures that can respond effectively and sustainably to future outbreaks.
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.