RESUMEN
COVID-19 intensified interest in telemedicine, yet no study has evaluated the use of a telepresence robot on unselected urological patients. Therefore, we performed a survey study of patients, bedside caregivers and urologists, investigating the satisfaction and applicability of a telepresence robot (Beam Pro, Suitable Technologies, USA) at the urology ward and emergency department. The primary outcome was the number of patient encounters solved without the urologist's physical presence. Between March 2021 and May 2021, patients, caregivers, and urologists filled in 42, 35, and 54 questionnaires, respectively. Most patients were male (79%), with a mean age of 64 (SD ± 17). Two of the department's ten urologists participated. The urologists responded that physical examination was required in 7 (13%) encounters. The caregivers would have preferred the urologist physically present in 11 (31%) cases. Most patients (71%) "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were willing to be attended by a telepresence robot at future evaluations and generally, patients gave high satisfaction scores. Though implementation among the department's urologists was a major challenge, participating urologists reported that physical presence could be avoided in 87% of the patient encounters. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures comparing telemedical and physical patient encounters are needed.
RESUMEN
AIM: To identify investigated interventions for COVID-19 prevention or treatment via trial registry entries on planned or ongoing randomised clinical trials. To assess these registry entries for recruitment status, planned trial size, blinding and reporting of mortality. METHODS: We identified trial registry entries systematically via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and 33 trial registries up to June 23, 2020. We included relevant trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating medical preventive, adjunct or supportive therapies and therapeutics for treatment of COVID-19. Studies with non-random and single-arm design were excluded. Trial registry entries were screened by two authors independently and data were systematically extracted. RESULTS: We included 1303 trial registry entries from 71 countries investigating 381 different single interventions. Blinding was planned in 47% of trials. Sample size was >200 participants in 40% of trials and a total of 611,364 participants were planned for inclusion. Mortality was listed as an outcome in 57% of trials. Recruitment was ongoing in 54% of trials and completed in 8%. Thirty-five percent were multicenter trials. The five most frequent investigational categories were immune modulating drugs (266 trials (20%)), unconventional medicine (167 trials (13%)), antimalarial drugs (118 trials (9%)), antiviral drugs (100 trials (8%)) and respiratory adjuncts (78 trials (6%)). The five most frequently tested uni-modal interventions were: chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (113 trials with 199,841 participants); convalescent plasma (64 trials with 11,840 participants); stem cells (51 trials with 3,370 participants); tocilizumab (19 trials with 4,139 participants) and favipiravir (19 trials with 3,210 participants). CONCLUSION: An extraordinary number of randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 management have been initiated with a multitude of medical preventive, adjunctive and treatment modalities. Blinding will be used in only 47% of trials, which may have influence on future reported treatment effects. Fifty-seven percent of all trials will assess mortality as an outcome facilitating future meta-analyses.