From volume to value: Improving peri-operative elective pathways through a roadmap from fast-track orthopedic surgery

From volume to value: a watershed moment for the clinical laboratory

The clinical laboratory is often evaluated for the volume of testing. However, it is undeniable that laboratory tests affect clinical decision-making and are included in many clinical guidelines, meaning their contribution to determining clinical outcomes. Therefore, the clinical laboratory professional has the task of enhancing laboratory tests by optimizing the request and reporting phase and addressing patient outcomes. This opinion paper, presenting practical examples of managing value-based health care in the clinical laboratory context, underlines the need to shift towards value-based management to optimize outcome-based health care.

Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the use of telemedicine for musculoskeletal conditions have been published in recent years. However, the landscape of evidence on multiple clinical outcomes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to summarize the available evidence from SRs on telemedicine for musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

We conducted an umbrella review of SRs with and without meta-analysis by searching PubMed and EMBASE up to July 25, 2022, for SRs of randomized controlled trials assessing telemedicine. We collected any kind of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), and objective measures, including direct and indirect costs. We assessed the methodological quality with the AMSTAR 2 tool (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). Findings were reported qualitatively.

RESULTS

Overall, 35 SRs published between 2015 and 2022 were included. Most reviews (n=24, 69%) were rated as critically low quality by AMSTAR 2. The majority of reviews assessed "telerehabilitation" (n=29) in patients with osteoarthritis (n=13) using PROMs (n=142 outcomes mapped with n=60 meta-analyses). A substantive body of evidence from meta-analyses found telemedicine to be beneficial or equal in terms of PROMs compared to conventional care (n=57 meta-analyses). Meta-analyses showed no differences between groups in PREMs (n=4), while objectives measures (ie, "physical function") were mainly in favor of telemedicine or showed no difference (9/13). All SRs showed notably lower costs for telemedicine compared to in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine can provide more accessible health care with noninferior results for various clinical outcomes in comparison with conventional care. The assessment of telemedicine is largely represented by PROMs, with some gaps for PREMs, objective measures, and costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022347366; https://osf.io/pxedm/.