AIMS: To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation. METHODS: The AMSTAR--Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews--checklist was used to appraise the evidence related to the systematic reviews. RESULTS: Among the 477 records initially identified, 10 systematic reviews matched the inclusion criteria. Fifty percent were of high quality; anyway the majority of them did not report the following aspects: i) analysis of the grey literature; ii) a list of the excluded studies and their characteristics; iii) the identification of possible source of bias and the assessment of its likehood; iv) an appropriate method to combine the findings of the included studies addressing the heterogeneity as well. From the main findings of the high-scored systematic reviews telerehabilitation resulted at least as effective as usual care: 1) in the short term treatment of mental health related to people affected by spinal cord injury; 2) in rural communities for treating patients affected by chronic conditions; 3) in treating common pathologies (mainly asthma) affecting children and adolescents. As for stroke, evidence is currently insufficient to reach conclusions about its effectiveness. As for costs, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that telerehabilitation is a cost-saving or cost-effective solution. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' knowledge this is the first attempt to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation. This work also identified the main findings related to the high-scored systematic reviews; the analysis confirms that there is a mounting evidence concerning the effectiveness of telerehabilitation, at least for some pathologies.
AIMS: To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation. METHODS: The AMSTAR--Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews--checklist was used to appraise the evidence related to the systematic reviews. RESULTS: Among the 477 records initially identified, 10 systematic reviews matched the inclusion criteria. Fifty percent were of high quality; anyway the majority of them did not report the following aspects: i) analysis of the grey literature; ii) a list of the excluded studies and their characteristics; iii) the identification of possible source of bias and the assessment of its likehood; iv) an appropriate method to combine the findings of the included studies addressing the heterogeneity as well. From the main findings of the high-scored systematic reviews telerehabilitation resulted at least as effective as usual care: 1) in the short term treatment of mental health related to people affected by spinal cord injury; 2) in rural communities for treating patients affected by chronic conditions; 3) in treating common pathologies (mainly asthma) affecting children and adolescents. As for stroke, evidence is currently insufficient to reach conclusions about its effectiveness. As for costs, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that telerehabilitation is a cost-saving or cost-effective solution. CONCLUSIONS: In the authors' knowledge this is the first attempt to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation. This work also identified the main findings related to the high-scored systematic reviews; the analysis confirms that there is a mounting evidence concerning the effectiveness of telerehabilitation, at least for some pathologies.
Authors: Dan Gillespie; Crystal MacLellan; Martin Ferguson-Pell; Andrea Taeger; Patricia J Manns Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2021 Impact factor: 1.039
Authors: Jose Manuel Pastora-Bernal; Rocio Martín-Valero; Francisco Javier Barón-López; María José Estebanez-Pérez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alessandro de Sire; Nicola Marotta; Francesco Agostini; Vera Drago Ferrante; Andrea Demeco; Martina Ferrillo; Maria Teresa Inzitari; Raffaello Pellegrino; Ilaria Russo; Ozden Ozyemisci Taskiran; Andrea Bernetti; Antonio Ammendolia Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-03-19