ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Role and impact of telemedicine in spine surgery: a systematic review.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The first week matters: App-based PROM trajectories and follow-up retention after endoscopic lumbar surgery.Brain & spine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Telemedicine has emerged as a valuable tool in spinal surgery, enabling remote consultations, preoperative assessments, and postoperative care. This systematic review evaluates its impact on clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and healthcare resource use from 2020 to 2024, highlighting key benefits, challenges, and future research directions. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MedLine, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase identified studies assessing telemedicine in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Covidence (Covidence, Melbourne, Australia) was used for screening and selection. Risk of bias was evaluated, and a qualitative synthesis was conducted following SWiM guidelines due to study heterogeneity. Data were standardised to one decimal place, except for reported P-values. Results: In total, 37 studies comprising 91,139 patients met inclusion criteria. Telemedicine demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy, with concordance rates exceeding 90% in most studies. Patient satisfaction remained consistently high (86.9-96.4%). It improved treatment adherence, pain management, and functional outcomes. Key advantages included cost-effectiveness and increased accessibility, though challenges such as bias and technological limitations persist. Conclusion: Telemedicine plays a significant role in spinal surgery, offering high diagnostic accuracy, patient satisfaction, and improved clinical outcomes, including reduced pain and disability. It enhances compliance, reduces costs, and improves access to care. However, technological barriers, regulatory concerns, and study heterogeneity underscore the need for further research. Telemedicine holds promise for transforming spinal surgery care.
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.