Amabile Borges Dario1, Anelise Moreti Cabral2, Lisandra Almeida3, Manuela Loureiro Ferreira4, Kathryn Refshauge5, Milena Simic5, Evangelos Pappas5, Paulo Henrique Ferreira5. 1. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Research Group, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia. Electronic address: adar3900@sydney.edu.au. 2. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Center of Biological Sciences and Health, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, Km 235. Monjolinho, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Institute of Health Sciences, Federal University of Bahia, Av Reitor Miguel Calmon, Vale do Canela, Salvador, Bahia 40.110-100, Brazil. 4. The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Level 13, 321 Kent St, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. 5. Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Research Group, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, 75 East St, Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telehealth has emerged as a potential alternative to deliver interventions for low back pain (LBP); however, its effectiveness has not been investigated. PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate whether interventions delivered by telehealth improve pain, disability, function, and quality of life in non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN: This is a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from the earliest records to August 2015. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions, solo or in combination with other interventions, for non-specific LBP compared with a control group. Trials deemed clinically homogeneous were grouped in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included (n=2,280). In chronic LBP, telehealth interventions had no significant effect on pain at short-term follow-up (four trials: 1,089 participants, weighted mean difference [WMD]: -2.61 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.23 to 0.01) or medium-term follow-up (two trials: 441 participants, WMD: -0.94 points, 95% CI: -6.71 to 4.84) compared with a control group. Similarly, there was no significant effect for disability. Results from three individual trials showed that telehealth was superior to a control intervention for improving quality of life. Interventions combining telehealth and usual care were more beneficial than usual care alone in people with recent onset of LBP symptoms. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that current telehealth interventions, alone, are not more effective than minimal interventions for reducing pain and disability in chronic LBP. To date, modern telehealth media (eg, apps) and telehealth as an adjunct to usual care remain understudied.
BACKGROUND: Telehealth has emerged as a potential alternative to deliver interventions for low back pain (LBP); however, its effectiveness has not been investigated. PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to evaluate whether interventions delivered by telehealth improve pain, disability, function, and quality of life in non-specific LBP. STUDY DESIGN: This is a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from the earliest records to August 2015. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions, solo or in combination with other interventions, for non-specific LBP compared with a control group. Trials deemed clinically homogeneous were grouped in meta-analyses. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included (n=2,280). In chronic LBP, telehealth interventions had no significant effect on pain at short-term follow-up (four trials: 1,089 participants, weighted mean difference [WMD]: -2.61 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.23 to 0.01) or medium-term follow-up (two trials: 441 participants, WMD: -0.94 points, 95% CI: -6.71 to 4.84) compared with a control group. Similarly, there was no significant effect for disability. Results from three individual trials showed that telehealth was superior to a control intervention for improving quality of life. Interventions combining telehealth and usual care were more beneficial than usual care alone in people with recent onset of LBP symptoms. CONCLUSION: There is moderate-quality evidence that current telehealth interventions, alone, are not more effective than minimal interventions for reducing pain and disability in chronic LBP. To date, modern telehealth media (eg, apps) and telehealth as an adjunct to usual care remain understudied.
Authors: Thomas Rutledge; J Hampton Atkinson; Tatiana Chircop-Rollick; John D'Andrea; Steven Garfin; Shetal Patel; Donald B Penzien; Mark Wallace; Anne L Weickgenant; Mark Slater Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Whitney Scott; Charlie Park; Georgios Christopoulos; Steven Vogel; Jerry Draper-Rodi Journal: Schmerz Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 1.629
Authors: Innocent Clement; Andreas Lorenz; Bernhard Ulm; Anne Plidschun; Stephan Huber Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Kate M O'Brien; Rebecca K Hodder; John Wiggers; Amanda Williams; Elizabeth Campbell; Luke Wolfenden; Sze Lin Yoong; Flora Tzelepis; Steven J Kamper; Christopher M Williams Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 2.984