Open Access

Erratum To: Virtual house calls for Parkinson disease (Connect.Parkinson): study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial

  • Meredith A. Achey1,
  • Christopher A. Beck1,
  • Denise B. Beran1,
  • Cynthia M. Boyd1Email author,
  • Peter N. Schmidt1,
  • Allison W. Willis1,
  • Sara S. Riggare1,
  • Richard B. Simone1,
  • Kevin M. Biglan1 and
  • E. Ray Dorsey1
Trials201617:7

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0984-7

Published: 5 January 2016

The original article was published in Trials 2014 15:465

After the publication of this article [1], it was discovered that eleven of the trials listed in the original article's Table 1 [1], had been erroneously identified as taking place in the home [212]. These studies actually evaluated physician videoconferencing visits with patients located in clinics. To ensure accuracy, we repeated the literature search in September of 2015, using the same search terms reported in the article and filtered for a publication date prior to July 1, 2014 (the original work was performed in June 2014.) We searched PubMed using the terms ‘telemedicine AND home AND randomized’ (378 results), ‘randomized AND video AND home’ (259 results), ‘videoconferencing AND randomized’ (178 results), and ‘virtual AND visits AND home’ (33 results), and reviewed the 141 studies identified in the review by Dr. Wootton mentioned in the article [13]. Of the 848 search results and 141 studies identified by Dr. Wootton, a total of six randomized controlled trials involving physician video calls directly to a patient in the home were identified (four from the original review [1417] and two additional studies [18, 19] identified through the new search). The eleven misidentified articles have been removed from the Corrected Table 1, and included for clarity as Erratum Table 2. The final paper listed in Erratum Table 2, Bishop JE et al. [3], has also been corrected here: our article reported 19 subjects, but the abstract indicates that 17 completed the study. We sincerely apologize for the oversight and any inconvenience these errors might have caused.
Corrected Table 1

Randomized, controlled trials involving video based virtual house calls from physicians (N = 6)

Study

Year

Sample size

Study population

Intervention(s)

Duration

Primary outcomes

Results

Dorsey ER et al. [14]

2013

20

Individuals with Parkinson disease

Randomized to (1) in-person care or (2) care via telemedicine

7 months

• Feasibility

• Virtual house calls were feasible

• Quality of life

• As effective as in-person care

McCrossan B et al. [15]

2012

83

Infants with congenital heart defects

Randomized to (1) videoconferencing support, (2) telephone support, or (3) control

10 weeks

• Acceptability

• Clinicians were more confident in treating patients in video visits vs. telephone

• Healthcare resource utilization

• Parents were satisfied with video visits • Healthcare resource utilization was lower in video-conferencing group

Leon A et al. [17]a

2011

83

Individuals with HIV

Randomized to (1) usual care or (2) Virtual Hospital care for one year, then crossed over after one year

2 years

• Clinical

• Satisfaction with Virtual Hospital was high

• Healthcare resource utilization

• Clinical outcomes were similar for both groups

• Quality of life

 

• Satisfaction

Morgan GJ et al. [16]

2008

30

Parents of children with severe congenital heart disease

Randomized to (1) telephone or (2) videoconferencing follow-up

6 weeks

• Parents’ anxiety

• Videoconferencing decreased anxiety levels compared to telephone and allowed better clinical information

• Clinical

• Clinician and patient satisfaction

Dallolio L et al. [19]

2008

137

Individuals with spinal cord injury

Randomized to (1) home (or nursing home or hospital) telemedicine (physician and nurse) and telerehabilitation (therapist) or (2) standard post-discharge care

6 months

• Clinical

• Telemedicine patients at one out of four sites had statistically significantly better functional improvement

• Satisfaction

• Satisfaction with interactions with nursing and medical staff and information and treatment received were higher in the telemedicine group

Whitlock WL et al. [18]a

2000

28

Individuals with Type II diabetes

Randomized to (1) home videoconferencing (monthly physician calls and weekly nurse calls) or (2) standard in-person care

3 months

• Clinical

• Some clinical outcomes improved significantly more in the telemedicine group

• Quality of life

• Quality of life was unchanged

• Satisfaction

• Physicians and case managers reported high subjective utility of telemedicine

• Technology problems were an obstacle

aStudy evaluates an intervention that includes virtual house calls, but also includes other telemonitoring and/or electronic communication methodologies

Erratum Table 2

Randomized, controlled trials involving video based physician visits with patients in clinical environments (N = 11)

Study

Year

Sample size

Study population

Intervention(s)

Duration

Primary outcomes

Results

Fortney JC et al. [8]

2013

364

Individuals with depression

Randomized to practice-based or telemedicine-base collaborative care

18 months

• Clinical

• Telemedicine-based collaborative care yielded better outcomes for depressed patients

Moreno FA et al. [9]

2012

167

Hispanic adults with depression

Randomized to telemedicine care from a psychiatrist or usual care from a primary care physician

6 months

• Clinical

• All participants improved on clinical measures

• Quality of life

• Time to improvement was shorter in telemedicine group

Ferrer-Roca O et al. [7]

2010

800

Primary care patients referred for specialized care

Randomized to face-to-face hospital referral or telemedicine from specialist

6 months

• Quality of life

• Telemedicine care was comparable to face-to-face care

• Diagnosis and examination to start treatment were faster in the telemedicine group

Stahl JE, Dixon RF [12]

2010

175

Patients in a general primary care practice

Interviewed face-to-face and via videoconferencing, order randomized

2 visits

• Satisfaction

• Patients and providers were highly satisfied with videoconferencing but preferred face-to-face

• Willingness to pay

• Technical quality of video calls had significant impact on satisfaction

Dorsey ER et al. [6]

2010

14

Individuals with Parkinson disease

Randomized to usual care or care via telemedicine

6 months

• Feasibility

• Virtual house calls were feasible

• Virtual house calls improved disease-specific measures significantly compared to usual care.

Dixon RF, Stahl JE [5]

2009

175

Patients in a general primary care practice

Randomized to one virtual visit and one face-to-face, or two face-to-face consultations

2 visits

• Diagnostic agreement

• Physicians and patients highly satisfied with virtual visits

• Satisfaction

• Diagnostic agreement between virtual and in-person evaluation was similar to comparison of two in-person evaluations

Ahmed SN et al. [2]

2008

41

Epilepsy patients

Randomized to telemedicine follow up or conventional

1 visit

• Cost effectiveness

• 90 % of patients in both groups satisfied with quality of services

• Cost to patients and caregivers

• Cost of telemedicine production was similar to patient savings

• Satisfaction

O’Reilly R et al. [10]

2007

495

Patients referred for psychiatric consult

Randomized to face to face or telepsychiatry

4 months

• Clinical

• Similar outcomes were seen in both arms

• Cost effectiveness

• Telepsychiatry was at least 10 % less expensive than in-person care

• Satisfaction

• Both groups expressed similar satisfaction

De Las Cuevas C et al. [4]

2006

140

Psychiatric outpatients

Randomized to face-to-face or telepsychiatry

24 weeks

• Clinical

• Telepsychiatry had equivalent efficacy to face-to-face care

Ruskin PE et al. [11]

2004

119

Veterans with depression

Randomized to telepsychiatry or in-person psychiatrist visits

6 months

• Clinical

• Both groups were equivalent in clinical outcomes, cost, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction.

• Cost effectiveness

• Healthcare resource utilization

• Satisfaction

Bishop JE et al. [3]

2002

17

Psychiatric patients

Randomized to videoconference or face-to-face

4 months

• Satisfaction

• Similar satisfaction observed in both groups

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

References

  1. Achey MA, Beck CA, Beran DB, Boyd CM, Schmidt PN, Willis AW, et al. Virtual house calls for Parkinson disease (Connect.Parkinson): study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:465.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed SN, Mann C, Sinclair DB, Heino A, Iskiw B, Quigley D, et al. Feasibility of epilepsy follow-up care through telemedicine: a pilot study on the patient’s perspective. Epilepsia. 2008;49(4):573–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop JE, O’Reilly RL, Maddox K, Hutchinson LJ. Client satisfaction in a feasibility study comparing face-to-face interviews with telepsychiatry. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(4):217–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. De Las Cuevas C, Arredondo MT, Cabrera MF, Sulzenbacher H, Meise U. Randomized clinical trial of telepsychiatry through videoconference versus face-to-face conventional psychiatric treatment. Telemed J E Health. 2006;12(3):341–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Dixon RF, Stahl JE. A randomized trial of virtual visits in a general medicine practice. J Telemed Telecare. 2009;15(3):115–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorsey ER, Deuel LM, Voss TS, Finnigan K, George BP, Eason S, et al. Increasing access to specialty care: a pilot, randomized controlled trial of telemedicine for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2010;25(11):1652–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrer-Roca O, Garcia-Nogales A, Pelaez C. The impact of telemedicine on quality of life in rural areas: the Extremadura model of specialized care delivery. Telemed J E Health. 2010;16(2):233–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fortney JC, Pyne JM, Mouden SB, Mittal D, Hudson TJ, Schroeder GW, et al. Practice-based versus telemedicine-based collaborative care for depression in rural federally qualified health centers: a pragmatic randomized comparative effectiveness trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(4):414–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Moreno FA, Chong J, Dumbauld J, Humke M, Byreddy S. Use of standard Webcam and Internet equipment for telepsychiatry treatment of depression among underserved Hispanics. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(12):1213–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Reilly R, Bishop J, Maddox K, Hutchinson L, Fisman M, Takhar J. Is telepsychiatry equivalent to face-to-face psychiatry? Results from a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(6):836–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ruskin PE, Silver-Aylaian M, Kling MA, Reed SA, Bradham DD, Hebel JR, et al. Treatment outcomes in depression: comparison of remote treatment through telepsychiatry to in-person treatment. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(8):1471–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Stahl JE, Dixon RF. Acceptability and willingness to pay for primary care videoconferencing: a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2010;16(3):147–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management--an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18(4):211–20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorsey ER, Venkataraman V, Grana MJ, Bull MT, George BP, Boyd CM, et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of “virtual house calls” for Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol. 2013;70(5):565–70.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. McCrossan B, Morgan G, Grant B, Sands AJ, Craig BG, Doherty NN, et al. A randomised trial of a remote home support programme for infants with major congenital heart disease. Heart. 2012;98(20):1523–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Morgan GJ, Craig B, Grant B, Sands A, Doherty N, Casey F. Home videoconferencing for patients with severe congential heart disease following discharge. Congenit Heart Dis. 2008;3(5):317–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Leon A, Caceres C, Fernandez E, Chausa P, Martin M, Codina C, et al. A new multidisciplinary home care telemedicine system to monitor stable chronic human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: a randomized study. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e14515.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Whitlock WL, Brown A, Moore K, Pavliscsak H, Dingbaum A, Lacefield D, et al. Telemedicine improved diabetic management. Mil Med. 2000;165(8):579–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Dallolio L, Menarini M, China S, Ventura M, Stainthorpe A, Soopramanien A, et al. Functional and Clinical Outcomes of Telemedicine in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(12):2332–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Achey et al. 2015

Advertisement