Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29515211›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2018

Telehealth for people with spinal cord injury: a narrative review.

I Irgens, T Rekand, M Arora, N Liu, R Marshall, F Biering-Sørensen, M Alexander

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Spinal cord, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06784245 (Effectiveness of Synchronous Telerehabilitation Versus Face-To-Face Physical Therapy on Physical Fitness, Functional Status, and Quality of Life in Frail Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06784245 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Synchronous Telerehabilitation Versus Face-To-Face Physical Therapy on Physical Fitness, Functional Status, and Quality of Life in Frail Older Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarina AlvaradoRan2025 to 2025Enrolled58ConditionsFrailty At Older AdultsArmsTeleActivate
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Current Approaches in Telehealth and Telerehabilitation for Spinal Cord Injury (TeleSCI).Current physical medicine and rehabilitation reports · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

I IrgensResearch Department, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Norway, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
T RekandDepartment of Neurology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2506-9501
M AroraJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales 2065, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1024-3682
N LiuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
R MarshallSouth Australian Spinal Cord Injury Service, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre, Lightsview, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
F Biering-SørensenClinic for Spinal Cord Injuries, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M AlexanderBirmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. spinalcordmd@live.com.
Central Adelaide Local Health NetworkHaukeland University Hospital · NOPeking University · CNSpaulding Rehabilitation Hospital · USThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designNarrative review.

objectivesTo find and discuss what has been published about the use of telehealth, on people with spinal cord injury (teleSCI).

settingInternational.

methodCochrane Library, Ovid Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL, from 1996 till June 2017 have been searched. Searches in  PsycINFO, from 1996 till September 2017, were included afterwards. Extracted data include studies in English language, containing information about spinal cord injury and disorders, and telehealth. Literature reviews, systematic reviews, and studies containing other types of neurological disorders, were excluded. Studies were grouped based on how and to whom telehealth was offered.

resultsTwenty nine studies were included in the review. They were categorized according to the way teleSCI was provided, and to what modality was used. Some studies utilized more than one modality. TeleSCI seems to be favorable concerning treatment and follow-up, as well as favorable socioeconomically and environmentally. The studies spanned across several aims and outcomes. There was also heterogeneity in number of participants, the differences in modalities, and in the level of evidence. Thus  it was challenging to compare studies  and make future recommendations.

conclusionsTeleSCI can be used for examination and guiding purposes. Further research is warranted to evaluate optimal utilization, methodology and efficacy. SPONSORSHIP: The first author has received funding from the Norwegian Extra Foundation.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualHumansInternational CooperationSpinal Cord InjuriesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID29515211
OpenAlexW2791297109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.