ReviewIranian journal of public health2025
Trade-offs between Accessibility and Practicality in Global Telemedicine: A Systematic Review.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine is increasingly vital in healthcare, offering remote consultations via message-based and video call-based platforms. These methods improve healthcare accessibility, particularly when in-person visits are limited. Telemedicine is increasingly vital in healthcare, offering remote consultations via message-based and video call-based platforms. These methods improve healthcare accessibility, particularly when in-person visits are limited. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in ScienceDirect, PubMed, and up to August 2024. Studies evaluating the accessibility and practicality of global telemedicine were evaluated. From initial 439 records, 19 studies were finally in this systematic review. Studies were reviewed thoroughly with quality appraisal using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, in which those rated for high quality studies were included. Results: Most studies (74%) were from high-income countries, notably the United States (26%) and Denmark (11%). Observational studies dominated (95%), focusing on follow-up consultations (47%) and diagnostic services (32%), particularly in general care (32%), neurology (11%), and surgery (5%). Research peaked in 2022 (32%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Common platforms included WhatsApp, AnyDesk, and QliqSOFT. Accessibility was the primary focus in 53% of studies, while 47% addressed feasibility. Challenges like technological barriers and privacy concerns were particularly noted in lower-income regions. Conclusion: Telemedicine has enhanced healthcare accessibility and demonstrated feasibility. However, technological limitations and remote consultation challenges persist, particularly in lower-income regions. Continued research is needed to optimize telemedicine and equitable access.
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.