ArticleTelemedicine reports
Postoperative PROMIS Scores from Sports Medicine Patients Randomized to Telehealth Virtual or In-Person Follow-Up from a Safety-Net Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial with a Superiority Framework.
Article in Telemedicine reports. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This randomized controlled trial compared the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of patients who attended virtual telehealth visits with those of patients who attended in-person visits at their postoperative sports medicine appointments in a safety-net population. This is a parallel group trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio with a superiority framework. Methods: This trial enrolled 90 patients who received operative sports intervention at one clinic. The intervention group (48 patients) attended telehealth visits. The control group (42 patients) attended standard in-person visits. Primary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-Physical (GH-P) and PROMIS Global-Mental (GH-M) scores obtained at the 6-month visit. Welch's Results: Eighty patients were included in the primary analysis. The telehealth group (45 patients) had a mean GH-P score 50.46 (standard deviation [SD] 7.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] [48.11-52.81]), whereas the in-person group (35 patients) had a mean score of 50.26 (SD 7.76; 95% CI [47.60-52.92]), with Δ = 0.20, Discussion: This study lacks statistical evidence to state that there is a difference in PROMIS scores between the telehealth and in-person groups. The difference of the means between the two groups is less than the minimal clinically important difference obtained from the literature. Due to participant attrition, the study was underpowered. Limitations include retrospective registration of this trial, an increased risk of making a type 2 error, having 23% of telehealth participants cross over to the in-person group, conducting 71% of telehealth visits by video and 29% by phone, and completing surveys using different methods. These limitations are potential systematic errors that weaken the study's internal validity. Level of Evidence: Level 1-prospective randomized controlled trial.
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.