Cited by 30Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUltrasound in Clinical Applications

Assessment of Pediatric Telemedicine Using Remote Physical Examinations With a Mobile Medical Device: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Wagner, Rafaela, Lima, Thalita Cecília, Silva, Marielen Ribeiro Tavares da, Rabha, Anna Clara Pereira, Ricieri, Marinei Campos, Fachi, Mariana Millan, Afonso, Rogério Carballo, Motta, Fábio Araújo·2023·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: The number of innovations in health care based on the use of platforms, digital devices, apps, and artificial intelligence has grown exponentially in recent years. When used correctly, these technologies allow inequities in access to health care to be addressed by optimizing care and reducing social and geographic barriers. However, most of the technological health care solutions proposed have not undergone rigorous clinical studies. Objective: To assess the concordance between measurements from a remote physical examination using a mobile medical device and measurements from a conventional in-person physical examination. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted from January 1 to December 31, 2020. The clinical parameters compared were heart rate; body temperature; heart, lung, and abdominal auscultation; otoscopy; throat and oral examination; and skin examination. A total of 690 patients with clinical stability and various symptoms who were seen in the emergency department of 2 Brazilian pediatric hospitals were eligible to enter this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was concordance between measurements from a telemedicine physical examination using a mobile medical device and measurements from a conventional in-person physical examination. The secondary outcome was the specificity and sensitivity of the digital device, considering the conventional in-person consultation as the gold standard. Results: Among 690 patients, the median (IQR) age at study entry was 5 (1-9) years; 348 (50.4%) were female, and 331 (48.0%) presented with a chronic disease. Regarding the primary outcome, the concordance values were 90% or greater for skin examination (94% for rash, 100% for hemorrhagic suffusion, and 95% for signs of secondary infection), characteristics of the mucosa (98% for hydration and 97% for coloring), and heart (95% for murmur, 97% for rhythms, and 98% for sounds), lung (91% for adventitious sounds, 97% for vesicular sounds, and 90% for fever), and abdominal (92% for abdominal sounds) auscultations. Concordance values were lower for otoscopy (72% for the ear canal and 86% for the tympanic membrane), throat and oral examination (72%), and rhinoscopy (79% for mucosa and 81% for secretion). The specificity was greater than 70% (ranging from 74.5% for the ear canal to 99.7% for hemorrhagic suffusion) for all variables. The sensitivity was greater than 52% for skin examination (58.0% for rash and 54.8% for signs of secondary infection), throat and oral examination (52.7%), and otoscopy (66.1% for the ear canal and 64.4% for the tympanic membrane). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, measurements from remote physical examination with a mobile medical device had satisfactory concordance with measurements from in-person physical examination for otoscopy, throat and oral examination, skin examination, and heart and lung auscultation, with limitations regarding heart and lung auscultation in infants and abdominal auscultation in children of all ages. Measurements from remote physical examination via a mobile medical device were comparable with those from in-person physical examination in children older than 2 years. These findings suggest that telemedicine may be an alternative to in-person examination in certain contexts and may help to optimize access to health care services and reduce social and geographic barriers. Trial Registration: Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials Identifier: RBR-346ymn

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.52570

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Device limitations can challenge the accuracy and effectiveness of a self-examination.

    “Device limitations can challenge the accuracy and effectiveness of a self-examination [245].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [245]

    The Discussion reports that amplified environmental or patient sounds sometimes prevented satisfactory auscultation, supporting the point that device-related limitations can affect examination quality. But the Methods describe examinations performed by a pediatric resident under a remote pediatrician’s guidance, not self-examinations; the source does not establish the claim for self-examination. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 30

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. [1]Biagio L, Swanepoel DW, Laurent C, Lundberg T. Video-otoscopy recordings for diagnosis of childhood ear disease using telehealth at primary health care level. J Telemed Telecare. 2014; 20(6): 300- 306. doi: 10.1177/1357633X14541038 24958356 · DOI
  2. [2]Iversen K, Greibe R, Timm HB,. A randomized trial comparing electronic and conventional stethoscopes. Am J Med. 2005; 118(11): 1289. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.06.016 16271920 · DOI
  3. [3]Mandavia R, Lapa T, Smith M, Bhutta MF. A cross-sectional evaluation of the validity of a smartphone otoscopy device in screening for ear disease in Nepal. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018;43(1):31-38. doi: 10.1111/coa.12898 28485038 · DOI
  4. [4]McConnochie KM. Potential of telemedicine in pediatric primary care. Pediatr Rev. 2006; 27(9): e58- e65. doi: 10.1542/pir.27.9.e58 16950936 · DOI
  5. [5]McDaniel NL, Novicoff W, Gunnell B, Cattell Gordon D. Comparison of a novel handheld telehealth device with stand-alone examination tools in a clinic setting. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(12):1225-1230. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0214 PMC6918850 30561284 · DOI
  6. [6]Richards JR, Gaylor KA, Pilgrim AJ. Comparison of traditional otoscope to iPhone otoscope in the pediatric ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015; 33(8): 1089- 1092. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.063 25979304 · DOI
  7. [7]Silverman B, Balk M. Digital stethoscope—improved auscultation at the bedside. Am J Cardiol. 2019; 123(6): 984- 985. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.12.022 30630590 · DOI
  8. [8]Haimi M, Brammli-Greenberg S, Waisman Y, Baron-Epel O. Physicians’ experiences, attitudes and challenges in a pediatric telemedicine service. Pediatr Res. 2018; 84(5): 650- 656. doi: 10.1038/s41390-018-0117-6 30120402 · DOI
  9. [9]Notario PM, Gentile E, Amidon M, Angst D, Lefaiver C, Webster K. Home-based telemedicine for children with medical complexity. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(11):1123-1132. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2018.0186 PMC6842894 30628860 · DOI
  10. [14]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(11):726-732. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332 20335313 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [16]Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union. 2016;L119:1-88.
  12. [18]Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Aggarwal R. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement. Perspect Clin Res. 2017; 8(4): 187- 191. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_123_17 29109937 PMC5654219 · DOI
  13. [19]Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1): 159- 174. doi: 10.2307/2529310 843571 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [20]Demant MN, Jensen RG, Bhutta MF, Laier GH, Lous J, Homøe P. Smartphone otoscopy by non-specialist health workers in rural Greenland: a cross-sectional study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 126: 109628. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109628 31445480 · DOI
  15. [21]Rappaport KM, McCracken CC, Beniflah J,. Assessment of a smartphone otoscope device for the diagnosis and management of otitis media. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2016; 55(9): 800- 810. doi: 10.1177/0009922815593909 26156976 · DOI
  16. [22]Shah MU, Sohal M, Valdez TA, Grindle CR. iPhone otoscopes: currently available, but reliable for tele-otoscopy in the hands of parents? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018; 106: 59- 63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.01.003 29447893 · DOI
  17. [23]Zenk BM, Bratton RL, Flipse TR, Page EE. Accuracy of detecting irregular cardiac rhythms via telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare. 2004; 10(1): 55- 58. doi: 10.1258/135763304322764211 15006218 · DOI
  18. [24]Kleinman K, Psoter KJ, Nyhan A, Solomon BS, Kim JM, Canares T. Evaluation of digital otoscopy in pediatric patients: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2021; 46: 150- 155. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.04.030 33945977 · DOI
  19. [25]Pasterkamp H. The history and physical examination. In: Chernick V, Boat TF, Wilmott RW, Bush A, eds. Kendig's Disorders of the Respiratory Tract in Children. 7th ed. Elsevier; 2006: 75- 93. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7216-3695-5.50010-9 · DOI
  20. [26]Pasterkamp H, Zielinski D. The history and physical examination. In: Wilmott RW, Bush A, Deterding RR,, eds. Kendig’s Disorders of the Respiratory Tract in Children. 9th ed. Elsevier; 2019: 2- 25. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-44887-1.00001-8 · DOI
  21. [27]Doshi AR. Innocent heart murmur. Cureus. 2018;10(12):e3689. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3689 PMC6368429 30761241 · DOI
  22. [28]Punnoose AR, Burke AE, Golub RM. Innocent (harmless) heart murmurs in children. JAMA. 2012; 308(3): 305. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.6223 22797652 · DOI
  23. [29]Smith KM. The innocent heart murmur in children. J Pediatr Health Care. 1997; 11(5): 207- 214. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5245(97)90103-6 9369637 · DOI
  24. [30]Dumas J, Hill KM, Adrezin RS,. Feasibility of an electronic stethoscope system for monitoring neonatal bowel sounds. Conn Med. 2013; 77(8): 467- 471. 24156174
  25. [31]Baid H. A critical review of auscultating bowel sounds. Br J Nurs. 2009; 18(18): 1125- 1129. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2009.18.18.44555 19966732 · DOI

Authors
Wagner, R., Lima, T. C., Silva, M. R. T. D., Rabha, A. C. P., Ricieri, M. C., Fachi, M. M., Afonso, R. C., & Motta, F. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Telehealth, Hospital Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
  • Department of Clinical Research, Hospital Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
  • Emergency Department, Sabará Hospital Infantil, São Paulo, Brazil
  • Value Management Office, Hospital Pequeno Príncipe, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
  • Department of Innovation and Business Development, Sabará Hospital Infantil, São Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding author
Wagner, Rafaela
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2023-02-02
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
e2252570
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4318913150
Cited by
30
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
FWCI
7.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
Keywords
pediatric telemedicine, remote physical examination, portable medical device, digital auscultation, auscultation, skin assessment, otoscopy, rhinoscopy, emergency department, diagnostic accuracy, health care access, children with chronic illness, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Child, Child, Preschool, Exanthema, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Physical Examination, Telemedicine, Coinfection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review