Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42456176›Full record

ReviewOnline journal of public health informatics2026

Trend in Devices and Digital Tools for Remote Consultation From Medical Providers to Specialists: Scoping Review.

Risa Hara, Yosuke Hirakawa, Yuka Sugawara, Masao Iwagami, Ryota Inokuchi, Masaomi Nangaku

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Online journal of public health informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Risa HaraDivision of Nephrology and Endocrinology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0085, Japan, 81 3-3815-5411, 81 3-5800-9826.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-9455-5596
Yosuke HirakawaDivision of Nephrology and Endocrinology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0085, Japan, 81 3-3815-5411, 81 3-5800-9826.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9238-650X
Yuka SugawaraDivision of Nephrology and Endocrinology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0085, Japan, 81 3-3815-5411, 81 3-5800-9826.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3022-1096
Masao IwagamiDepartment of Digital Health, Social Medicine Group, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7079-0640
Ryota InokuchiDepartment of Clinical Engneering, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6343-2298
Masaomi NangakuDivision of Nephrology and Endocrinology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0085, Japan, 81 3-3815-5411, 81 3-5800-9826.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7401-2934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital health care technologies, including mobile applications and telemedicine platforms, have transformed how medical professionals communicate and deliver care. Remote consultation by doctors plays a vital role in ensuring access to appropriate expertise, particularly in medically underserved or geographically remote areas. However, the diversity in technological modalities, devices, and patterns of use across specialties and regions has not been systematically mapped. Objective: This study aimed to explore the current status and characteristics of teleconsultations among medical providers and specialists, focusing on device use, consultation modalities, clinical specialties, and regional differences. Through this approach, we aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of technological and practical trends in mobile health (mHealth) and telemedicine. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines using the MEDLINE and Embase databases. The search covered studies published up to February 2026, with no restrictions on the publication year. Studies meeting the predefined inclusion criteria were also included. Results: A total of 255 citations were screened, and 99 articles were included. Studies were analyzed according to consultation method, target, and regional characteristics. Of these, 81 out of 99 (81.8%) articles were in the doctor-to-doctor category. Email, web, or app-based platforms were the most common. In addition, 86 out of 99 studies used medical images, most frequently photographs. Orthopedics and dermatology were the most frequently involved specialties, followed by internal medicine. Regarding the region, 60 of 99 studies were domestic, and the other 39 studies were international. Rural-to-urban domestic consultations comprised 27 out of 99 (27.3%) studies, whereas consultations from low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries accounted for 11 of 99 (11%) studies. Conclusions: This review examined doctor-to-doctor and doctor-to-patient consultations with doctor involvement. Specialties in which medical images are central, such as orthopedics and dermatology, were more frequently represented than in other fields. This highlights disparities in the use of teleconsultation across clinical disciplines and suggests that addressing these imbalances is essential for broader adoption. Furthermore, the findings indicated a progressive shift from videoconference-based interactions to mobile and app-based platforms, reflecting ongoing technological advancements. Optimizing the integration of these digital tools and promoting equitable access are critical for enhancing the quality and reach of teleconsultation practices in future digital health systems.

Indexed as

digital technologydoctor-to-doctor consultationdoctor-to-patient with doctor consultationmedical consultationmobile healthremote consultationteleconsultationtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID42456176
PMCPMC13372300

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.