Evidence mapPaperPMID 41140344Full record

ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

A Technology Selection Tool Applying Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Virtual Care Implementation.

Joseph P Deason, Scott J Adams, Ahmad Rahman, Stacey Lovo, Ivar Mendez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joseph P DeasonVirtual Health Hub, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Scott J AdamsVirtual Health Hub, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Ahmad RahmanVirtual Health Hub, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Stacey LovoVirtual Health Hub, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Ivar MendezVirtual Health Hub, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To develop and pilot a technology selection tool (TST) designed to evaluate and recommend virtual care technologies tailored to specific community clinical needs. Patients and Methods: Developed through collaborations among clinicians, software developers, technology experts, and health administrators, the TST uses a multiple criteria decision analysis framework to recommend technologies based on clinical relevance and technical quality. Its functionality was tested in a pilot project that assessed 5 technologies for their application in virtual wound care to support a remote community in Saskatchewan, Canada. The pilot study was completed March 7, 2025, through July 28, 2025. Results: The TST identified the TeleVU Glass View as the optimal technology for virtual wound care. The TST generated product scores for the TeleVU Glass View (71.67), Teladoc Xpress (70.10), 19 Labs GALE (50.67), and TytoCare TytoKit (47.00), whereas disqualifying the Teladoc Lite Cart for not meeting the pass-fail portability criterion. TeleVU's high product score resulted primarily from its technological attribute quality scores for Telestration (10), Audio (9), Video (9), and Share Content (9), which were all determined as clinically relevant for virtual wound care. The pilot enabled real-time wound care support by connecting local clinicians with virtual teams. Conclusion: The TST offers a practical and adaptable tool to support evidence-based decision making for selecting technologies for specific clinical applications.

Identifiers

PMID41140344
PMCPMC12547007

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.