Telemedicine Infectious Diseases Consultations and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background Telemedicine use is increasing in many specialties, but its impact on clinical outcomes in infectious diseases has not been systematically reviewed. We reviewed the current evidence for clinical effectiveness of telemedicine infectious diseases consultations, including outcomes of mortality, hospital readmission, antimicrobial use, cost, length of stay, adherence, and patient satisfaction. Methods We queried Ovid MEDLINE 1946-, Embase.com 1947-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov 1997- through August 5, 2019, for studies looking at clinical outcomes of infectious diseases in the setting of telemedicine use. We did not restrict by language or year of publication. Clinical outcomes searched included 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day readmissions, patient compliance/adherence, patient satisfaction, cost or cost-effectiveness, length of hospital stay, antimicrobial use, and antimicrobial stewardship. Bias was assessed using standard methodologies. PROSPERO CRD42018105225. Results From a search pool of 1154 studies, only 18 involved telemedicine infectious diseases consultation and our selected clinical outcomes. The outcomes tracked were heterogeneous, precluding meta-analysis, and the majority of studies were of poor quality. Overall, clinical outcomes with telemedicine infectious diseases consultation seem comparable to in-person infectious diseases consultation. Conclusions Although in widespread use, the clinical effectiveness of telemedicine infectious diseases consultations has yet to be sufficiently studied. Further studies, or publication of previously collected and available data, are warranted to verify the cost-effectiveness of this widespread practice. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018105225.

Epidemiology of measles during the COVID-19 pandemic, a description of the surveillance data, 29 EU/EEA countries and the United Kingdom, January to May 2020

“…With hospitals overwhelmed with the inflow of COVID-19 patients and needing reorganisation, clinical practices were also challenged. Telemedicine expanded rapidly among general practitioners and paediatricians in response to the pandemic and the need to adopt social distancing measures [15,16]. However, there is little data on the quality of telemedicine consultation for the aetiological diagnosis of rash diseases [17], especially in low prevalence settings [18].…”

Meeting the challenge of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease in patients with cancer

“…First, not all patients will have access to high-speed internet connections, and this must be addressed. 9 Some of these clinical encounters will still be accomplished through phone conversations, with in-person clinical visits reserved for those with unresolved problems or without telemedicine connectivity. Second, providers and patients who typically have not used telemedicine will have to be introduced and supported until they develop some facility.…”

Effectiveness of mass testing for control of COVID-19: a systematic review protocol

“… 35 Regarding the case–control and cohort studies assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the quality of these studies will be adjudicated based on a previous study 38 : good quality: Selection ≥3 stars AND Comparability ≥1 stars AND Outcome ≥2 stars; fair quality: Selection 2 stars AND Comparability ≥1 stars AND Outcome ≥2 stars; poor quality: Selection ≤1 star OR Comparability 0 stars OR ≤1 star. 38 …”

“…37 For assessing the non-randomised studies, each item from the MINORS will be rated from 0 to 2, which means that a score of 0 indicates that the information was not reported, 1 indicates that the information was inadequately reported and 2 indicates that the information was adequately reported. 35 Regarding the case-control and cohort studies assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the quality of these studies will be adjudicated based on a previous study 38 : good quality: Selection ≥3 stars AND Comparability ≥1 stars AND Outcome ≥2 stars; fair quality: Selection 2 stars AND Comparability ≥1 stars AND Outcome ≥2 stars; poor quality: Selection ≤1 star OR Comparability 0 stars OR ≤1 star. 38 In addition, we will complete a narrative synthesis, providing a comprehensive descriptive summary around the type of COVID-19 test, the study design and the target population characteristics that is focused on the primary outcome (the sensitivity as well as the specificity of the tests for COVID -19).…”

“…35 Regarding the case-control and cohort studies assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the quality of these studies will be adjudicated based on a previous study 38 : good quality: Selection ≥3 stars AND Comparability ≥1 stars AND Outcome ≥2 stars; fair quality: Selection 2 stars AND Comparability ≥1 stars AND Outcome ≥2 stars; poor quality: Selection ≤1 star OR Comparability 0 stars OR ≤1 star. 38 In addition, we will complete a narrative synthesis, providing a comprehensive descriptive summary around the type of COVID-19 test, the study design and the target population characteristics that is focused on the primary outcome (the sensitivity as well as the specificity of the tests for COVID -19). In text and table formats, the methodological characteristics of the studies, subpopulation characteristics, test characteristics and sensitivity and specificity of the tests will also be presented.…”