Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31714924›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in the management of adults with stroke: A systematic review.

Emma Appleby, Sophie Taylor Gill, Lucinda Kate Hayes, Tessa Lauren Walker, Matt Walsh, Saravana Kumar

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06871878 (PeRsonAlised Community Based TelerehabIlitation Post StrokE to Increase Rehabilitation Time and Improve Motor Recovery), which is not on this map. Cited by 69 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06871878 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

PeRsonAlised Community Based TelerehabIlitation Post StrokE to Increase Rehabilitation Time and Improve Motor Recovery: a Feasibility Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorGlasgow Caledonian UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled60ConditionsStroke Patients, StrokeArmsPRACTISE Physiotherapy Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Telerehabilitation services for stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality Appraisal of Telerehabilitation Guidelines: A Systematic Review.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Emma ApplebyUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sophie Taylor GillUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lucinda Kate HayesUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Tessa Lauren WalkerUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Matt WalshUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Saravana KumarUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4003-4411

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity and access to timely rehabilitation can reduce morbidity and help patients to return to normal life. Telerehabilitation can deliver rehabilitation services with the use of technology to increase patient options, deliver services more efficiently and overcome geographical barriers to healthcare access. Despite its popularity, there is conflicting evidence for its effectiveness. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to update the current evidence base on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for stroke.

methodsA systematic search of databases (Medline Ovid; Embase; Emcare; Scopus; The Cochrane Library; PEDro; OTSeeker) was conducted in April 2018 (updated in October 2018). This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and methodology registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090445). A modified McMaster critical appraisal tool for quantitative studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a descriptive synthesis was conducted.

resultsOut of 1868 studies, 13 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A diverse range of interventions were delivered through a variety of telerehabilitation systems and the effectiveness measured through a myriad of outcome measures. Summarised findings from the heterogeneous evidence base indicate that telerehabilitation may have a positive impact on a range of primary and secondary outcomes. However, despite these positive findings, the current evidence lacks clarity and uniformity in terms of intervention parameters and measurement of outcomes, which limits broader application of these results. DISCUSSION: Telerehabilitation, as an alternate form of rehabilitation for people with stroke, shows potential. However, due to methodological and practical concerns, an unequivocal recommendation cannot be made. Findings from this review may inform future policies and practices regarding the use of telerehabilitation for stroke patients.

Indexed as

Stroke RehabilitationTelerehabilitationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDatabases, FactualDisease ManagementFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor ActivityPatient SatisfactionPsychomotor PerformanceQuality of LifeStroke

Identifiers

PMID31714924
PMCPMC6850545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.