Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 225

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient reported outcomes with remote orthopaedic consultations by telemedicine: A randomised controlled trial

Buvik, Astrid, Bugge, Einar, Knutsen, Gunnar, Småbrekke, Arvid, Wilsgaard, Tom·2019·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Introduction: Decentralised services through outreach clinics or modern technology reduce patient travel time and cost to society. Telemedicine consultation through videoconference is one such modality. Here, we compared patient-reported health outcomes and satisfaction between video-assisted remote and standard face-to-face orthopaedic consultations. Methods: This randomised controlled trial included two parallel groups: (1) patients receiving video-assisted remote consultation at a regional medical centre (RMC); and (2) patients receiving standard consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic of the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN). This study included patients referred to or scheduled for a consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. After each consultation, patient satisfaction was determined using patient-completed questionnaires containing questions on patient-reported health (three-level European quality of life five-dimension index (EQ-5D-3L)/European quality of life visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS)) and questions from a validated OutPatient Experiences Questionnaire (OPEQ). Results: This study included 389 patients, of which 199 received remote consultation and 190 received standard consultation (total of 559 consultations). In all, 99% RMC-randomised patients and 99% UNN-randomised patients evaluated the consultation as very satisfactory or satisfactory. Moreover, 86% RMC-randomised patients preferred video-assisted consultation as the next consultation. No difference was observed in patient-reported health after 12 months between the two groups. EQ-5D index scores were 0.77 and 0.75 for RMC- and UNN-randomised patients, respectively ( p = 0.42). Discussion: We did not observe any difference in patient-reported satisfaction and health (EQ-5D/EQ-VAS) between video-assisted and standard consultations, suggesting that video-assisted remote consultation can be safely offered to some orthopaedic patients. Moreover, a significantly high proportion of patients selected video-assisted remote consultation as their next consultation, thus strengthening the findings of this study. However, economic aspects should be assessed before widely recommending video-assisted consultation.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/1357633x18783921

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 225

Metadata

Authors
Buvik, A., Bugge, E., Knutsen, G., Småbrekke, A., & Wilsgaard, T.
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2018-07-04
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
451-459
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2824934933
Cited by
225
References
4
FWCI
27.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient reported outcomes with remote orthopaedic consultations by telemedicine: A randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1357633x18783921
The paper
Buvik, A., Bugge, E., Knutsen, G., Småbrekke, A., & Wilsgaard, T. (2019). Patient reported outcomes with remote orthopaedic consultations by telemedicine: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x18783921

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.