Understanding virtual urology clinics: a systematic review

To perform a systematic review to identify the clinical, fiscal and environmental evidence on the use of urological telehealth and/or virtual clinic (VC) strategies, and to highlight research gaps in this rapidly evolving field.

Our PROSPERO-registered (CRD42019151946) systematic search of Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Review Database was performed to identify original research articles pertaining to adult urology telehealth or VC strategies. Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment was performed according to the Cochrane 2.0 RoB tool or the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for non-randomized studies.

A total of 5813 participants were included from 18 original articles (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 10 prospective studies, six retrospective studies). Urology sub-specialities comprised: uro-oncology (n = 6); general urology (n = 8); endo-urology (n = 2); and lower urinary tract symptoms and/or incontinence (n = 2). Across all sub-specialties, prospective studies using VCs reported a primary median (interquartile range [IQR]) VC discharge rate of 16.6 (14.7-29.8)% and a primary median (IQR) face-to-face (FTF) clinic referral rate of 32.4 (15.5-53.3)%. Direct cost analysis demonstrated median (IQR) annual cost savings of £56 232 (£46 260-£61 116). Grade II and IIIb complications were reported in two acute ureteric colic studies, with rates of 0.20% (3/1534) and 0.13% (2/1534), respectively. The annual carbon footprint avoided ranged from 0.7 to 4.35 metric tonnes of CO₂ emissions, depending on the mode of transport used. Patient satisfaction was inconsistently reported, and assessments lacked prospective evaluation using validated questionnaires.

Urology VCs are a promising new platform which can offer clinical, financial and environmental benefits to support an increasing urological referral burden. Further prospective evidence is required across urological sub-specialties to confirm equivalency and safety against traditional FTF assessment.