Telemedicine
Video orthopaedics non-inferior to clinic
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Remote video orthopaedic consultations met the trial’s non-inferiority margin versus standard outpatient visits.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Some service-delivery trials are designed as non-inferiority tests rather than superiority tests. Orthopaedic patients randomised to videoconference versus usual outpatient visits had quality-score differences whose 90% CI (0.05–0.17) stayed inside the pre-specified non-inferiority margin, with all video visits completed as planned.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Trials disagree on what a 'positive' result is allowed to be. The orthopaedic telemedicine trial treats staying inside a non-inferiority margin as success, whereas the Facebook walking, Text4Heart, Kokoro-app and MoodGYM trials are powered to show the intervention beating control on a change score. A student who reads only superiority language will misread a successful non-inferiority trial as 'no difference, so it failed.'
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Trials disagree on what a 'positive' result is allowed to be. The orthopaedic telemedicine trial treats staying inside a non-inferiority margin as success, whereas the Facebook walking, Text4Heart, Kokoro-app and MoodGYM trials are powered to show the intervention beating control on a change score. A student who reads only superiority language will misread a successful non-inferiority trial as 'no difference, so it failed.'
- Supports · Facebook team walking RCT
- Supports · Can a CBT phone app help stubborn depression?
Study at a glance
- Design
- RCT — Videoconference orthopaedic consultations vs usual hospital outpatient visits; non-inferiority
- N
- N=389 · 389 patients; 559 consultations analysed
- Population
- Orthopaedic outpatients referred for specialist consultation
- Outcome
- Specialist-rated consultation quality (non-inferiority)
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Video orthopaedics non-inferior to clinic
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
389 patients; 559 consultations.
A total of 559 consultations (257 at UNN and 302 at RMC) from 389 patients (190 at UNN and 199 at RMC) were included. Th
Hypothesis?
The study hypothesis examines the non-inferiority of telemedicine consultation versus conventional outpatient consultation. O
Key findings
389 patients (559 consultations) analysed. The 90% CI for score difference (0.05–0.17) stayed within the non-inferiority margin; all video visits ran as planned.
Methodology
Patients were randomised to videoconference orthopaedic consultations versus usual hospital outpatient visits; specialists scored quality.
Limitations
Non-inferiority depends on the pre-specified margin; some patient-reported outcomes were reported separately.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.