Current Research in Public Health
Systematic Review | Open Access | 10.31586/crph.2023.768

A Systematic Review of Observational Studies Focusing on Impact of Telehealth Consultation in Osteoporosis Management during the Pandemic

Samia Amin1,*, Oishi Barua2, Farjana Masud ; Sumaiya Monjur3, Tahsin Munajja4 and Ashish Joshi5
1
Macquarie University, Australia
2
Chattogram Maa-O-Shishu Hospital Medical College, Bangladesh
3
6 University of Memphis, United States
4
BIRDEM General Hospital, Bangladesh
5
University of Memphis, United States

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted routine osteoporosis care due to clinic closures and limited in-person consultations. Telehealth emerged as an alternative model enabling remote care delivery and monitoring. However, previous reviews on telehealth either did not include the pandemic period or had a limited focus in scope. Evidence synthesized specifically for osteoporosis care during the pandemic is needed but lacking. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL for studies on telehealth for osteoporosis published between January 2021 and March 2023. Five studies met the inclusion criteria of: osteoporosis population, telehealth intervention, and COVID-19 pandemic timeframe. Data was extracted on study characteristics, COVID-19 outcomes, osteoporosis status, telehealth purpose, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. Result: The five studies showed telehealth was used for monitoring data, delivering test results, adjusting medications, and assessments. Osteoporosis prevalence among telehealth users ranged 30-100%. High patient satisfaction was reported with telehealth versus in-person care. No major differences occurred in medication delays or fractures between telehealth and in-person groups. Conclusion: This review found telehealth enables effective osteoporosis care and monitoring during the pandemic, with high patient and provider satisfaction. However, more robust randomized controlled trials are needed to establish stronger evidence around telehealth's impacts on clinical osteoporosis outcomes. Implications: Though promising, further high-quality studies will help clarify telehealth's role in improving osteoporosis care and outcomes. Findings inform guidelines on integrating telehealth into routine management. Evidence on user perspectives optimizes telehealth implementation policies.

1. Introduction

Osteoporosis is a chronic metabolic bone disease characterized by low bone density and deterioration of bone tissue, resulting in increased skeletal fragility and fracture risk [1] that needs long term monitoring [2]. According to the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommendation, (Bone Mineral Density (BMD) needs to be assessed every 2 years in osteoporotic patients [3]. The global prevalence of osteoporosis is rising, as it is estimated to affect over 200 million people worldwide, with more than 8.9 million osteoporotic fractures annually [4]. In developed countries, the prevalence of osteoporosis ranges from 2 to 8 % among males and 9 to 38 % among females [5]. Key risk factors include aging, female gender, family history, hormonal changes, low calcium intake, smoking, alcohol use, and low physical activity [6]. Osteoporosis is also associated with diabetes, causing osteoporosis-associated fracture in diabetic patients, which leads to impaired new bone formation interfering the healing process [7, 8]. Fragility fractures are the primary complication, often occurring in the hip, spine, or wrist, and resulting in long term physical disability, diminished quality of life, and increased mortality risk [9, 10]. Furthermore, it has been found that an osteoporotic fracture occurs every 3 seconds, with the most common fractures occurring at the hip, spine, and wrist [11].

The COVID-19 pandemic caused major disruptions in delivery of routine medical care for chronic conditions like osteoporosis [12]. Widespread lockdowns, clinic closures, and fear of virus exposure limited in-person consultations and treatment [13]. This highlighted the need for alternative models of care like telehealth to enable remote delivery of medical care and monitoring. Telehealth uses technology including videoconferencing, remote monitoring devices, and mobile health apps to facilitate virtual provider-patient consults [14]. Through telemedicine, we can now reach many underserved and underprivileged communities which can ensure remote consultation and patient education [15]. Telehealth can also be used for home-based palliative care and ensure the patient’s comfort and improve quality of life [16]. However, existing reviews on telehealth excluded the pandemic period or were limited to specific interventions or outcomes [17]. Evidence synthesized specifically for osteoporosis care during the pandemic is lacking but urgently needed.

There is a lack of synthesized evidence on the effectiveness, patient experience, and medical provider satisfaction with telehealth for osteoporosis care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The abrupt shift to telehealth consultations for chronic disease management warrants investigation into its utility and impact on outcomes. This review synthesizes evidence on telehealth for osteoporosis care during the pandemic. The findings will inform guidelines on integrating telehealth into routine osteoporosis management. Evidence on patient and provider perspectives will shape policies to optimize telehealth implementation. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness, patient experience, and medical provider satisfaction with telehealth for osteoporosis care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature search

A systematic search of the literature was performed using PubMed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL with several combinations of the following and related search words: Osteopenia, bone disease, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatology, telehealth, teleconsultation, remote consultation, digital health, mobile health, Covid-19, pandemic, and/or lockdown. Sample PubMed database search was "osteoporosis"【MeSH Terms】 OR "bone diseases"【MeSH Terms】 OR "bone"【All Fields】 OR "metabolic bone diseases"【All Fields】 OR "osteopenia"【All Fields】 AND "telehealth s"【All Fields】 OR "telemedicine" 【MeSH Terms】 OR "telemedicine"【All Fields】 AND "covid 19"【All Fields】 OR "covid 19"【MeSH Terms】. We identified relevant studies published between January 2021 and March 2023. This review focuses on the role of telehealth or teleconsultation or digital health or mobile health technology in osteoporosis management.

2.2. Study selection and eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) If the study population has osteoporosis or any medical professionals who were involved in osteoporosis management. (2) used telehealth or teleconsultation or digital health or mobile health technology; and (3) studies during and post Covid-19 lockdown (January 2021 until March 2023). Articles were excluded if they were not written in English, or if they were not peer-reviewed. The duplicate articles were also excluded. The reference lists of all relevant articles were also screened to ensure all eligible studies were included.

The search identified 95 studies (Figure 1). All papers from the automated database searches were collated using the Endnote reference management software. After duplicates were deleted, screening was conducted to ensure that studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. A total of 65 papers were screened on title and abstract and the 24 remaining papers were screened on full text. A total of 5 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. Five reviewers independently assessed the included studies, discrepancies were discussed and resolved by discussion. Inter-coder agreement was measured by K statistic. Clear reasons for exclusion were documented by each reviewer.

2.3. Data extraction and reporting method

The following details were extracted using a structured form: (1) General characteristics of the study (Author, publication year, study design, study setting, recruitment characteristics and recruitment methods); (2) sample size (3) Covid-19 outcome (4) Osteoporosis status (5) Patient satisfaction and (6) outcome. As outcome measures varied across the studies, we were unable to perform meta-analysis; instead, narrative synthesis was conducted. Each study was described, followed by comparative analysis and synthesis.

3. Results

3.1. Study and participants characteristics

A total of 5 studies [18, 19, 20, 21, 22] were included in this review. Table 1 summarizes characteristics of five studies.

Three studies were longitudinal (retrospective) designs conducted in hospital settings [18, 20, 22]. These studies recruited participants from March-September 2020 or January-April 2022 and followed them for 6-7 months. Participants were physicians/medical doctors treating patients.

One study was cross-sectional, conducted in a hospital in April-May 2020 [21]. This study surveyed 892 patients to examine COVID-19 outcomes. Another cross-sectional study was conducted via a survey of 77 healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants) in May 2020 [19]. Sample sizes went from 77 [19] to 892 [21]. Most participants were middle-aged to elderly adults, with more women than men.

3.2. COVID-19 characteristics

Two studies reported COVID-19 infection rates, which ranged from 1.2% to 29.1% [18, 21]. One study examined fever (5.1%) and death (0.9%) as COVID-19 outcomes [21]. Three studies did not report COVID-19 outcomes [19, 20, 22].

3.3. Osteoporosis status

Studies by Alsadhan et al. (2022), Peeters et al. (2021) and Pongiglione et al. (2023) found that 100% of their telehealth population had osteoporosis [18, 19, 20]. Another study by Salvio et al. (2022) reported 45.7% of their cohort had severe osteoporosis based on bone density criteria and fragility fractures [21]. The percentage of osteoporosis patients was lower in Tornero-Molina et al. (2021) study at 30.4%, while the same study had osteoarthritis patients at 42.6% [22].

3.4. Telehealth for osteoporosis care

Telehealth consultations were shorter compared to in-person, ranging from 3-30 minutes [22]. However, across studies, a high percentage of patients were satisfied with telehealth for osteoporosis care, with satisfaction scores ranging from 5.2-8.6 out of 10 [20, 21, 22]. Telehealth was used for monitoring patients' bone health data, adherence to osteoporosis medications, delivering test results, adjusting treatment, and providing clinical assessments [18, 19, 20, 22]. No major differences were seen in new fractures or delays in getting osteoporosis medications between telehealth and in-person care groups [18, 19]. Telehealth use was higher during the COVID-19 post-emergency phase compared to the emergency phase [20].

Osteoporosis medications were prescribed to a high proportion of patients via telehealth, including bisphosphonates (47-49%) and denosumab (33-54%) [19, 20]. One study found no significant difference in anti-osteoporosis medication delays between telehealth and in-person care [18]. Fracture rates during the study periods ranged from 1.9-44.8% [18, 19, 20, 21]. Vitamin D supplementation was high (94.6%) via telehealth [21].

3.5. Patient experience and medical professional satisfaction

Included studies found patient as well as medical professionals including doctors were highly satisfied with telehealth for osteoporosis care and monitoring.

Patient satisfaction with telehealth osteoporosis care was high across studies, with scores ranging from 5.2-8.6 out of 10 [20, 21, 22]. One study found 56.4% were extremely satisfied with telehealth vs. 24.6% satisfied with in-person care [18]. Patients with higher education and IT skills reported greater telehealth satisfaction [22]. In another study, 30.7% reported delayed treatment start and 32% started treatment after major fracture with telehealth [19]. Privacy concerns and technology substitution were associated with lower satisfaction scores in one study [20].

Doctors overall reported high satisfaction with telehealth, especially those with greater IT skills [22]. Doctors with higher IT skills had 3.22 times higher odds of satisfaction with telehealth [22]. Consultations involving lab/test results and treatment adjustment were associated with 2.25 times higher doctor satisfaction [22]. All the outcomes of the included studies are summarized in Table 2.

4. Discussion

This review found that telehealth was an effective platform for providing osteoporosis care and monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic, with high satisfaction reported by both patients and doctors. Telehealth facilitated various aspects of osteoporosis management including monitoring, test result reviews, medication adjustments, and assessments. It was effective across diverse severities of osteoporosis. Patients and doctors, especially those with stronger IT skills, reported greater satisfaction with telehealth compared to in-person care. There were no major differences in clinical outcomes like fractures or medication delays between telehealth and in-person groups. These findings indicate telehealth enables quality monitoring and treatment of osteoporosis.

The effectiveness of telehealth for monitoring and treating osteoporosis shown here reflects outcomes from prior research on chronic disease like diabetes or heart failure. Multiple studies have reported high satisfaction with telehealth among diabetes patients, related to improved access and self-management support [23, 24]. Telehealth interventions have demonstrated equivalent or improved HbA1c levels and other diabetes markers compared to standard care [25]. This aligns with this review showing telehealth's capacity to facilitate effective osteoporosis monitoring and treatment. In heart failure, a meta-analysis found telehealth interventions significantly reduced mortality and hospitalizations compared to usual care [26]. Other studies highlighted convenience and closer provider communication as drivers of heart failure patient satisfaction with telehealth [27]. As with the current review findings, telehealth demonstrates advantages for managing heart failure and other chronic conditions. The high satisfaction coupled with positive impacts on medication management and clinical outcomes seen here reflects conclusions from across telehealth literature. Telehealth models have been shown effective for delivering care in diabetes, heart failure, and other chronic illnesses. Findings from this review further reinforce telehealth as an enabler of accessible, quality care for lifelong conditions like osteoporosis.

The COVID-19 outcomes in this review echo data on reduced transmission and improved disease control with telehealth across diverse medical fields during the pandemic. For example, a study found a lower risk of COVID transmission for telehealth visits versus office visits among patients in a respiratory assessment clinic [28]. Similarly, a trial in COPD patients reported a significant drop in emergency department admissions for COPD exacerbations with telehealth monitoring versus usual care during lockdowns [29]. This adds further evidence that telehealth protected vulnerable patients against COVID-19 while enabling safe continuity of chronic disease care.

This review aligns with extensive literature demonstrating major advantages of telehealth in user experience and satisfaction for both osteoporosis patients and doctors. Overall, paralleling this osteoporosis review, telehealth demonstrates high patient and provider satisfaction for chronic disease [25, 26]. Multiple studies reported satisfaction among diabetes patients using telehealth services, relating to improved access, communication, and self-management support [23, 24]. Overall, telehealth consultations offer advantages such as improved access and communication, but limitations such as technological barriers and challenges with follow-up need to be considered for effective osteoporosis management. Although it facilitates team-based care expansion, potentially improving the efficiency of services, however, suboptimal patient-clinician relationship building process can be a challenge.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this review found telehealth is an effective platform for osteoporosis care and monitoring during the COVID-19 pandemic, with high patient and provider satisfaction. However, more robust randomized controlled trials are needed to establish stronger evidence around telehealth's impacts on hard clinical outcomes in osteoporosis. Future research should examine long-term results from telehealth interventions, like effects on fracture rates, medication adherence, and healthcare utilization. Cost-effectiveness studies are also important to understand the value of scaled telehealth implementation. Additionally, more research is needed on best practices to optimize telehealth delivery among diverse patient populations. Though promising, further high-quality studies will help clarify telehealth's role in improving osteoporosis care and outcomes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S. A; methodology, S.A and O.B; formal analysis, S.A and O.B; writing—original draft preparation, S.A and O.B; writing—review and editing, F.M, S.M, T. M and A. J; supervision, S.A.

Funding: None.

Data Availability Statement: On request.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. JAMA 2001285, 785–795.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Foessl, I.; Dimai, H. P.; Obermayer-Pietsch, B. Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2023,19, 520-533.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cosman, F.; de Beur, S. J.; LeBoff, M. S. Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2014, 25, 2359-2381.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Epidemiology of Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures. Facts & Statistics 2021.
  5. Wade, S. W.; Strader, C. Estimating prevalence of osteoporosis: examples from industrialized countries. Archives of osteoporosis 2014, 9, 182.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Akkawi, I.; Zmerly, H. Osteoporosis: Current Concepts. Joints 2018, 6, 122–127.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jiao, H.; Xiao, E.; Graves, D. T. Diabetes and Its Effect on Bone and Fracture Healing. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2015, 13, 327-335.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kurra, S.; Fink, D. A.; Siris, E. S. Osteoporosis-associated Fracture and Diabetes. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America 2014, 43, 233-243.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. O'Neill, T. W.; Roy, D. K. How many people develop fractures with what outcome? Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 2005, 19, 879–895.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Srivastava, M.; Deal, C. Osteoporosis in elderly: prevention and treatment. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2002, 18, 529–555.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. International Osteoporosis Foundation. World Osteoporosis Day 2019. Facts & Statistics 2019.
  12. Mirsky, J. B.; Horn, D. M. Chronic disease management in the COVID-19 era. The American journal of managed care 202026, 329–330.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tang J. COVID-19 Pandemic and Osteoporosis in Elderly Patients. Aging and disease 202213, 960–969.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mahar, J. H.; Rosencrance, J. G. Telemedicine: Past, present, and future. Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine 201885, 938–942.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Saag, J. L.; Danila, M. I. Remote Management of Osteoporosis. Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol 2022, 8, 143-151.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Steindal, S. A.; Nes, A. A. G.; Godskesen, T. E. Advantages and Challenges of Using Telehealth for Home-Based Palliative Care: Systematic Mixed Studies Review. J Med Internet Res 2023, 25, 43684.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lee, I.; Kovarik, C. Telehealth: Helping your patients and practice survive and thrive during the COVID-19 crisis with rapid quality implementation. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 202082, 1213–1214.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Alsadhan, I.; Alyusuf, E.Y. Adoption of telemedicine care for osteoporotic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. Archives of Osteoporosis 2023, 18, 16.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Peeters, J.J.M.; van den Berg, P. Osteoporosis care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: A national survey. Archives of Osteoporosis 2021, 16, 11.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pongiglione, B.; Carrone, F. Patient characteristics associated with the acceptability of teleconsultation: a retrospective study of osteoporotic patients post-COVID-19. BMC Health Services Research 202323, 230.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Salvio, G.; Gianfelice, C. Remote management of osteoporosis in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Osteoporosis 2022, 17, 37.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tornero-Molina, J.; Sánchez-Alonso, F. Tele-Rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reumatología Clínica 2022, 18, 157–163.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sun, C.; Malcolm, J. C. Improving Glycemic Control in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes With the Use of Smartphone-Based Mobile Applications: A Systematic Review. Canadian Journal of Diabetes 201943, 51–58.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vehi, J.; Regincós Isern, J. Impact of Use Frequency of a Mobile Diabetes Management App on Blood Glucose Control: Evaluation Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20197, e11933.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chang, Y. T.; Tu, Y. Z. Real-world Benefits of Diabetes Management App Use and Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose on Glycemic Control: Retrospective Analyses. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 202210, e31764.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lin, M. H.; Yuan, W. L. Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine for chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of investigative medicine 201765, 899–911.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alarabyat, I. A.; Al-Nsair, N. Perceived barriers to effective use of telehealth in managing the care of patients with cardiovascular diseases: a qualitative study exploring healthcare professionals' views in Jordan. BMC health services research 202323, 452.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Phillips, J. C.; Lord, R. W. Comparing telehealth to traditional office visits for patient management in the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in a respiratory assessment clinic. Journal of telemedicine and telecare 202329, 374–381.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sculley, J. A.; Musick, H. Telehealth in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: before, during, and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Current opinion in pulmonary medicine 202228, 93–98.[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Copyright

© 2024 by authors and Scientific Publications. This is an open access article and the related PDF distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Metrics

Citations

No citations were found for this article, but you may check on Google Scholar

If you find this article cited by other articles, please click the button to add a citation.

Article Access Statistics
Article Download Statistics
Article metrics
Views
Downloads
87

How to Cite

Amin, S., Barua, O. ., Masud, F. ., Monjur, S. ., Munajja, T. ., & Joshi, A. . (2023). A Systematic Review of Observational Studies Focusing on Impact of Telehealth Consultation in Osteoporosis Management during the Pandemic. Current Research in Public Health, 3(2), 119–127. Retrieved from https://www.scipublications.com/journal/index.php/crph/article/view/768
  1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. JAMA 2001285, 785–795.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Foessl, I.; Dimai, H. P.; Obermayer-Pietsch, B. Long-term and sequential treatment for osteoporosis. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2023,19, 520-533.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cosman, F.; de Beur, S. J.; LeBoff, M. S. Clinician's Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 2014, 25, 2359-2381.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. International Osteoporosis Foundation. Epidemiology of Osteoporosis and Fragility Fractures. Facts & Statistics 2021.
  5. Wade, S. W.; Strader, C. Estimating prevalence of osteoporosis: examples from industrialized countries. Archives of osteoporosis 2014, 9, 182.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Akkawi, I.; Zmerly, H. Osteoporosis: Current Concepts. Joints 2018, 6, 122–127.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jiao, H.; Xiao, E.; Graves, D. T. Diabetes and Its Effect on Bone and Fracture Healing. Curr Osteoporos Rep 2015, 13, 327-335.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kurra, S.; Fink, D. A.; Siris, E. S. Osteoporosis-associated Fracture and Diabetes. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America 2014, 43, 233-243.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. O'Neill, T. W.; Roy, D. K. How many people develop fractures with what outcome? Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 2005, 19, 879–895.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Srivastava, M.; Deal, C. Osteoporosis in elderly: prevention and treatment. Clinics in geriatric medicine 2002, 18, 529–555.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. International Osteoporosis Foundation. World Osteoporosis Day 2019. Facts & Statistics 2019.
  12. Mirsky, J. B.; Horn, D. M. Chronic disease management in the COVID-19 era. The American journal of managed care 202026, 329–330.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Tang J. COVID-19 Pandemic and Osteoporosis in Elderly Patients. Aging and disease 202213, 960–969.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mahar, J. H.; Rosencrance, J. G. Telemedicine: Past, present, and future. Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine 201885, 938–942.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Saag, J. L.; Danila, M. I. Remote Management of Osteoporosis. Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol 2022, 8, 143-151.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Steindal, S. A.; Nes, A. A. G.; Godskesen, T. E. Advantages and Challenges of Using Telehealth for Home-Based Palliative Care: Systematic Mixed Studies Review. J Med Internet Res 2023, 25, 43684.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lee, I.; Kovarik, C. Telehealth: Helping your patients and practice survive and thrive during the COVID-19 crisis with rapid quality implementation. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 202082, 1213–1214.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Alsadhan, I.; Alyusuf, E.Y. Adoption of telemedicine care for osteoporotic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience from a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. Archives of Osteoporosis 2023, 18, 16.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Peeters, J.J.M.; van den Berg, P. Osteoporosis care during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: A national survey. Archives of Osteoporosis 2021, 16, 11.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pongiglione, B.; Carrone, F. Patient characteristics associated with the acceptability of teleconsultation: a retrospective study of osteoporotic patients post-COVID-19. BMC Health Services Research 202323, 230.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Salvio, G.; Gianfelice, C. Remote management of osteoporosis in the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Archives of Osteoporosis 2022, 17, 37.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tornero-Molina, J.; Sánchez-Alonso, F. Tele-Rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reumatología Clínica 2022, 18, 157–163.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sun, C.; Malcolm, J. C. Improving Glycemic Control in Adults and Children With Type 1 Diabetes With the Use of Smartphone-Based Mobile Applications: A Systematic Review. Canadian Journal of Diabetes 201943, 51–58.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vehi, J.; Regincós Isern, J. Impact of Use Frequency of a Mobile Diabetes Management App on Blood Glucose Control: Evaluation Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20197, e11933.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chang, Y. T.; Tu, Y. Z. Real-world Benefits of Diabetes Management App Use and Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose on Glycemic Control: Retrospective Analyses. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 202210, e31764.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lin, M. H.; Yuan, W. L. Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine for chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of investigative medicine 201765, 899–911.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Alarabyat, I. A.; Al-Nsair, N. Perceived barriers to effective use of telehealth in managing the care of patients with cardiovascular diseases: a qualitative study exploring healthcare professionals' views in Jordan. BMC health services research 202323, 452.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Phillips, J. C.; Lord, R. W. Comparing telehealth to traditional office visits for patient management in the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in a respiratory assessment clinic. Journal of telemedicine and telecare 202329, 374–381.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sculley, J. A.; Musick, H. Telehealth in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: before, during, and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Current opinion in pulmonary medicine 202228, 93–98.[CrossRef] [PubMed]

Citations of