Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35411024›Full record

SynthesisSpinal cord2022

Telerehabilitation for individuals with spinal cord injury in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature.

Rosie M Solomon, Raju Dhakal, Stephen J Halpin, Ram Hariharan, Rory J O'Connor, Matthew Allsop, Manoj Sivan

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spinal cord, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.6field-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.

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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Importance of Telerehabilitation and Future Directions for the Field.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025
    Article
  11. The role of advocacy and policy in advancing global neurosurgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rosie M SolomonAcademic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4913-6246
Raju DhakalSpinal Injury Rehabilitation Centre, Bhaisepati, Sanga, Kavre, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0001-6631-4289
Stephen J HalpinAcademic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Ram HariharanPrincess Royal Spinal Injury Unit, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Rory J O'ConnorAcademic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. medrjo@leeds.ac.uk.
Matthew Allsop *Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Manoj Sivan *Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
University of Leeds · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBNorthern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designSystematic review.

objectiveTo systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of telerehabilitation as an intervention for people with spinal cord injury (SCI) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

settingNot applicable.

methodsMEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Pubmed and Global Health databases were used to identify studies published between 1946-2020 meeting the following criteria: (1) patients with SCI diagnosis; (2) in LMIC; (3) an outcome measuring clinical functional ability, quality of life or all-cause mortality reduction. The risk of bias in studies was graded using revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool in randomised trials (RoB 2) and risk-of-bias tool in non-randomised trials (ROBINS-I). Evidence levels were graded with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

resultsIn total, 107 articles were identified from the initial search. After screening, five studies were included. Some significant improvements to quality of life and pressure ulcer management were observed, alongside some improvement in functional ability with suggested improvement to depression scores. Telerehabilitation alleviated participants' sense of social isolation, improved satisfaction scores and assisted them to remember techniques for SCI management. Telerehabilitation was valued by health professionals. There was no reduction in all-cause mortality.

conclusionThere is insufficient evidence to recommend telerehabilitation as an intervention to treat and manage SCI in LMICs, although there is an indication of potential patient benefit. Further research is required to better understand the causal mechanisms underpinning the use of telerehabilitation and establish its efficacy, in the context of resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

Spinal Cord InjuriesTelerehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingDeveloping CountriesHumansQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID35411024
PMCPMC9106582
OpenAlexW4223540533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.