Televisits Compared With In-Person Visits for Routine Antenatal Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare benefits and harms of televisits and in-person visits in people receiving routine antenatal care. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted of PubMed, Cochrane databases, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 12, 2022, for antenatal (prenatal) care, pregnancy, obstetrics, telemedicine, remote care, smartphones, telemonitoring, and related terms, as well as primary study designs. The search was restricted to high-income countries. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Double independent screening was done in Abstrackr for studies comparing televisits and in-person routine antenatal care visits for maternal, child, health care utilization, and harm outcomes. Data were extracted into SRDRplus with review by a second researcher. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, four nonrandomized comparative studies, and one survey compared visit types between 2004 and 2020, three of which were conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Number, timing, and mode of televisits and who provided care varied across studies. Low-strength evidence from studies comparing hybrid (televisits and in-person visits) and all in-person visits did not indicate differences in rates of neonatal intensive care unit admission of the newborn (summary odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28) or preterm births (summary OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03). However, the studies with stronger, although still statistically nonsignificant, associations between use of hybrid visits and preterm birth compared the COVID-19 pandemic and prepandemic eras, confounding the association. There is low-strength evidence that satisfaction with overall antenatal care was greater in people who were pregnant and receiving hybrid visits. Other outcomes were sparsely reported. CONCLUSION: People who are pregnant may prefer hybrid televisits and in-person visits. Although there is no evidence of differences in clinical outcomes between hybrid visits and in-person visits, the evidence is insufficient to evaluate most outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021272287.

Guidance for gynecologists utilizing telemedicine during COVID‐19 pandemic based on expert consensus and rapid literature reviews

Background COVID‐19 has impacted delivery of outpatient gynecology and shifted care toward use of telemedicine. Objective To rapidly review literature and society guidelines and create expert consensus to provide guidance regarding management of outpatient gynecology scenarios via telemedicine. Search strategy Searches were conducted in Medline and Cochrane databases from inception through April 15, 2020. Selection criteria Literature searches were conducted for articles on telemedicine and abnormal uterine bleeding, chronic pelvic pain, endometriosis, vaginitis, and postoperative care. Searches were restricted to available English language publications. Data collection and analysis Expedited literature review methodology was followed and 10 943 citations were single‐screened. Full‐text articles and relevant guidelines were reviewed and narrative summaries developed. Main results Fifty‐one studies on the use of telemedicine in gynecology were found. Findings were reported for these studies and combined with society guidelines and expert consensus on four topics (abnormal uterine bleeding, chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis, vaginal discharge, and postoperative care). Conclusions Guidance for treating gynecological conditions via telemedicine based on expedited literature review, review of society recommendations, and expert consensus is presented. Due to minimal evidence surrounding telemedicine and gynecology, a final consensus document is presented here that can be efficiently used in a clinical setting. Guidance for gynecologists using telemedicine during COVID‐19 based on rapid literature review, review of society recommendations, and expert consensus in accessible format.

A guide for urogynecologic patient care utilizing telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: review of existing evidence.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The COVID-19 pandemic and the desire to "flatten the curve" of transmission have significantly affected the way providers care for patients. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeons (FPMRS) must provide high quality of care through remote access such as telemedicine. No clear guidelines exist on the use of telemedicine in FPMRS. Using expedited literature review methodology, we provide guidance regarding management of common outpatient urogynecology scenarios during the pandemic. METHODS: We grouped FPMRS conditions into those in which virtual management differs from direct in-person visits and conditions in which treatment would emphasize behavioral and conservative counseling but not deviate from current management paradigms. We conducted expedited literature review on four topics (telemedicine in FPMRS, pessary management, urinary tract infections, urinary retention) and addressed four other topics (urinary incontinence, prolapse, fecal incontinence, defecatory dysfunction) based on existing systematic reviews and guidelines. We further compiled expert consensus regarding management of FPMRS patients in the virtual setting, scenarios when in-person visits are necessary, symptoms that should alert providers, and specific considerations for FPMRS patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS: Behavioral, medical, and conservative management will be valuable as first-line virtual treatments. Certain situations will require different treatments in the virtual setting while others will require an in-person visit despite the risks of COVID-19 transmission. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented guidance for treating FPMRS conditions via telemedicine based on rapid literature review and expert consensus and presented it in a format that can be actively referenced.