Telemedicine applications in general practice demonstrated positive significant clinical effects in 63.6% of the reviewed studies, with no evidence of worsened outcomes compared to standard care.
Systematic Review
Do telemedicine applications improve clinical outcomes, economic effects, and patient experiences in general practice patients compared to control?
Telemedicine in general practice shows evidence of positive clinical effects, primarily in chronic diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure, without worsening outcomes.
Introduction Telemedicine (TM) in general practice has declined following the pandemic. One reason is deemed to be the lack of clear evidence regarding the quality of care provided by TM. Therefore, the aim of this review, was to systematically present the existing evidence concerning the use of TM applications in general practice. Methods This structured review includes randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies with a control group. The literature search targeted the time period from 2011 to 2025, screened by two researchers who focused in particular on medical efficacy, economic effects, and patient experiences. Results The searches in the PubMed and Cochrane databases yielded 488 publications (30 June 2025). After filtering out duplicates and performing multi-step screening (title, abstract and full text), 22 studies were included in the final analysis. Over 50% of these studies found positive significant effects in the clinical outcomes. Over 80% of the included studies entailed asynchronous applications and 95% of the studies observed a time period of 12 months or less. The studies focused primarily on chronic somatic diseases, including diabetes mellitus type 2, hypertension and heart failure. Discussion Our findings demonstrate that there is evidence supporting the use of telemedicine in general practice. However, the majority of the studies focused on diseases that are not among the most common reasons for encounter and had a rather short follow-up observation period. The fact that the studies were not initiated by the specialty itself is the most likely explanation for these findings. There was no evidence that TM causes (significant) worsening of outcomes in the conditions addressed in the included studies.
Marahrens et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Various chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure, COPD). Telemedicine applications (synchronous and asynchronous) vs. Standard care was evaluated on Clinical outcomes, economic effects, and patient experiences. Telemedicine applications in general practice demonstrated positive significant clinical effects in 63.6% of the reviewed studies, with no evidence of worsened outcomes compared to standard care.