CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 234Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyTechnology Use by Older Adults

Clinical outcomes resulting from telemedicine interventions: a systematic review

Open access
Hersh, William R, Helfand, Mark, Wallace, James, Kraemer, Dale, Patterson, Patricia, Shapiro, Susan, Greenlick, Merwyn·2001·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
DOI 10.1186/1472-6947-1-5PMC PMC60664
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of telemedicine is growing, but its efficacy for achieving comparable or improved clinical outcomes has not been established in many medical specialties. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of telemedicine interventions for health outcomes in two classes of application: home-based and office/hospital-based. METHODS: Data sources for the study included deports of studies from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and HealthSTAR databases; searching of bibliographies of review and other articles; and consultation of printed resources as well as investigators in the field. We included studies that were relevant to at least one of the two classes of telemedicine and addressed the assessment of efficacy for clinical outcomes with data of reported results. We excluded studies where the service did not historically require face-to-face encounters (e.g., radiology or pathology diagnosis). All included articles were abstracted and graded for quality and direction of the evidence. RESULTS: A total of 25 articles met inclusion criteria and were assessed. The strongest evidence for the efficacy of telemedicine in clinical outcomes comes from home-based telemedicine in the areas of chronic disease management, hypertension, and AIDS. The value of home glucose monitoring in diabetes mellitus is conflicting. There is also reasonable evidence that telemedicine is comparable to face-to-face care in emergency medicine and is beneficial in surgical and neonatal intensive care units as well as patient transfer in neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread use of telemedicine in virtually all major areas of health care, evidence concerning the benefits of its use exists in only a small number of them. Further randomized controlled trials must be done to determine where its use is most effective.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6947-1-5

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Systematic reviews have found telemedicine to be feasible, well accepted by patients, and reliable.

    “Systematic reviews of telemedicine have found telemedicine to be feasible, well accepted by patients, and reliable.24,25”

    From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [25]

  • Evidence shows telemedicine provides at least comparable care in emergency departments and benefits in surgical and neonatal intensive care unit settings, among others.

    “There is evidence that telemedicine provides at least comparable care in emergency department settings, as well as benefit in surgical and neonatal intensive care unit settings, among others.”

    From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hersh, W. R., Helfand, M., Wallace, J., Kraemer, D., Patterson, P., Shapiro, S., & Greenlick, M.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Hersh, William R
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2001-11-26
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
5-5
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1472-6947-1-5
PMC
PMC60664
OpenAlex
W2140540008
Cited by
234
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Oregon Health and Science University
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (290-97-0018)
  • U.S. Public Health Service (290-97-0018)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
telemedicine, clinical outcomes, chronic disease management, hypertension, AIDS, diabetes mellitus, home blood glucose monitoring, emergency medicine, surgical care, neonatal intensive care, neurosurgery, patient transfer
MeSH terms
Humans, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine

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