Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35249750›Full record

ArticleJournal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics2021

Scoping Review of Telehealth for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Applications for the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Frank M Bucki, Michael B Clay, Hannah Tobiczyk, Bart N Green

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Experiencing COMFORT: Perceptions of Virtually-delivered Nonpharmacologic Therapies in Adults Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain.Pain management nursing : official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Patient experiences receiving rehabilitation careFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frank M BuckiCincinnati VA Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. Electronic address: frank.bucki@va.gov.
Michael B ClayCincinnati VA Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Hannah TobiczykCincinnati VA Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bart N GreenStanford Health Care, San Diego, California.
Cincinnati VA Medical Center · USStanford Health Care · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this scoping review was to identify information about telehealth and rehabilitation for the evaluation and management of musculoskeletal disorders, patient satisfaction, cost, and access as may be applicable during the COVID-19 pandemic.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE for studies published between January 1, 2000, and June 1, 2019. Search terms consisted of MEDLINE medical subject headings and other words relevant to this review, including "telerehabilitation," "musculoskeletal," "telemedicine," "therapy," "chiropractic," "ergonomics," and "exercise." This review targeted studies of people aged 18 years and older with musculoskeletal concerns. Articles on diagnostic tests, effectiveness of treatment, patient satisfaction, access to care, and cost were included.

resultsEleven studies were included in this review. Interrater reliability and agreement were moderate to high for several assessment procedures for the lower limb, elbow, and low back. Two clinical trials demonstrated that provider and patient simultaneous telehealth were equally as effective as in-office care. Patient and provider satisfaction with telehealth were reported to be equal to or higher than for conventional rehabilitation. We found no studies reporting cost or access.

conclusionIn the COVID-19 pandemic environment, telehealth is feasible for health care providers to provide rehabilitation services for their patients with various musculoskeletal conditions. Current evidence suggests that for some musculoskeletal disorders, telehealth evaluation may be reliable, treatment may be effective, and patient satisfaction may be good or better than for in-office care. Results from this study may help physiatry, physical therapy, and chiropractic health care providers in their decisions to implement telehealth during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

COVID-19Musculoskeletal DiseasesTelemedicineAdolescentAdultHumansPandemicsReproducibility of ResultsChiropracticCOVID-19Musculoskeletal DiseasesPatient SatisfactionTelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID35249750
PMCPMC8892222
OpenAlexW4214925889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.