ArticleF&S reports2026
High patient satisfaction with both telehealth and in-person new patient visits at a large academic fertility center.
Article in F&S reports, 2026. 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.
- Validation of a Novel Smartphone-Based Point-of-Care Semen Analysis System to Evaluate Male Reproductive Potential: A Concordance Study with Computer-Assisted Sperm Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Objective: To identify differences in patient satisfaction between individuals who had in-person vs. telemedicine consultations at our large academic institution's ambulatory fertility clinic. Design: This cross-sectional study involved distribution of an electronic survey, including questions to assess demographic factors and graded satisfaction metrics, to all patients at Penn Fertility Care. Subjects: Eligible respondents were self-screened to include only patients ≥18 years old who had a new patient visit between January 2019 and July 2024. Exposure: Type of consultation: telemedicine vs. in-person. Main Outcome Measures: Patient satisfaction, assessed using graded satisfaction metrics and evaluated using χ Results: Surveys were disseminated to 6,660 patients via patient portal messages. Of 505 patients who read the messages, 464 (91.6%) completed the survey. There was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction between in-person and telemedicine respondents, with high levels of satisfaction in each group (87.0% in-person, 82.0% telemedicine). Patients who had telemedicine consultations were less likely to report improved access to care compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.38-0.95). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients with infertility preferred in-person visits, whereas patients undergoing planned oocyte cryopreservation favored telemedicine consultations. Conclusion: Although telemedicine plays a valuable role in fertility care, it is important to continue to offer in-person visits as an option, particularly for patients experiencing infertility. To optimize patient satisfaction, clinics should remain flexible and consider tailoring the types of visits offered to meet the unique preferences and needs of their patients.
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.