Michelle A Cottrell1,2, Olivia A Galea1, Shaun P O'Leary1,3, Anne J Hill1,2, Trevor G Russell1,2. 1. 1 School of Health and Rehabilitation Science, University of Queensland, Australia. 2. 2 Centre for Research Excellence in Telehealth, University of Queensland, Australia. 3. 3 Physiotherapy Department, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment delivered via real-time telerehabilitation for the management of musculoskeletal conditions, and to determine if real-time telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional methods of delivery within this population. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PEDro, psycINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to November 2015 for literature which reported on the outcomes of real-time telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal conditions. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened 5913 abstracts where 13 studies ( n = 1520) met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs & Black 'Checklist for Measuring Quality' tool. Results were pooled for meta-analysis based upon primary outcome measures and reported as standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Aggregate results suggest that telerehabilitation is effective in the improvement of physical function (SMD 1.63, 95%CI 0.92-2.33, I2=93%), whilst being slightly more favourable (SMD 0.44, 95%CI 0.19-0.69, I2=58%) than the control cohort following intervention. Sub-group analyses reveals that telerehabilitation in addition to usual care is more favourable (SMD 0.64, 95%CI 0.43-0.85, I2=10%) than usual care alone, whilst treatment delivered solely via telerehabilitation is equivalent to face-to-face intervention (SMD MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.10-0.37, I2 = 0%) for the improvement of physical function. The improvement of pain was also seen to be comparable between cohorts (SMD 0.66, 95%CI -0.27-1.60, I2=96%) following intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time telerehabilitation appears to be effective and comparable to conventional methods of healthcare delivery for the improvement of physical function and pain in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment delivered via real-time telerehabilitation for the management of musculoskeletal conditions, and to determine if real-time telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional methods of delivery within this population. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PEDro, psycINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to November 2015 for literature which reported on the outcomes of real-time telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal conditions. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened 5913 abstracts where 13 studies ( n = 1520) met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs & Black 'Checklist for Measuring Quality' tool. Results were pooled for meta-analysis based upon primary outcome measures and reported as standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Aggregate results suggest that telerehabilitation is effective in the improvement of physical function (SMD 1.63, 95%CI 0.92-2.33, I2=93%), whilst being slightly more favourable (SMD 0.44, 95%CI 0.19-0.69, I2=58%) than the control cohort following intervention. Sub-group analyses reveals that telerehabilitation in addition to usual care is more favourable (SMD 0.64, 95%CI 0.43-0.85, I2=10%) than usual care alone, whilst treatment delivered solely via telerehabilitation is equivalent to face-to-face intervention (SMD MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.10-0.37, I2 = 0%) for the improvement of physical function. The improvement of pain was also seen to be comparable between cohorts (SMD 0.66, 95%CI -0.27-1.60, I2=96%) following intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time telerehabilitation appears to be effective and comparable to conventional methods of healthcare delivery for the improvement of physical function and pain in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions.
Authors: Mariana Ortiz-Piña; Pablo Molina-Garcia; Pedro Femia; Maureen C Ashe; Lydia Martín-Martín; Susana Salazar-Graván; Zeus Salas-Fariña; Rafael Prieto-Moreno; Yolanda Castellote-Caballero; Fernando Estevez-Lopez; Patrocinio Ariza-Vega Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 3.390