Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38426164›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neurology2024

Cognitive telerehabilitation: an expert consensus paper on current evidence and future perspective.

Maria Grazia Maggio, Francesca Baglio, Francesco Arcuri, Francesca Borgnis, Marianna Contrada, Marcos Daniel Maldonado Diaz, Carl Froilan Leochico, Nicolas Jimenez Neira, Stefania Laratta, Boris Suchan and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Maria Grazia MaggioIRCCS Centro Neurolesi "Bonino Pulejo", Messina, Italy.
Francesca BaglioIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Milan, Italy.
Francesco ArcuriS. Anna Institute and Research in Advanced Neurorehabilitation, Crotone, Italy.
Francesca BorgnisIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi Onlus, Milan, Italy.
Marianna ContradaS. Anna Institute and Research in Advanced Neurorehabilitation, Crotone, Italy.
Marcos Daniel Maldonado DiazClínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.
Carl Froilan LeochicoUniversity of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.
Nicolas Jimenez NeiraFundación Polibea, Madrid, Spain.
Stefania LarattaS. Anna Institute and Research in Advanced Neurorehabilitation, Crotone, Italy.
Boris SuchanDepartment of Neuropsychology, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Paolo ToninS. Anna Institute and Research in Advanced Neurorehabilitation, Crotone, Italy.
Rocco Salvatore CalabròIRCCS Centro Neurolesi "Bonino Pulejo", Messina, Italy.
Istituto S.Anna Crotone · ITCentro Neurolesi Bonino Pulejo · ITDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITRuhr University Bochum · DEUniversidad del Desarrollo · CLUniversity of the Philippines Manila · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The progressive improvement of the living conditions and medical care of the population in industrialized countries has led to improvement in healthcare interventions, including rehabilitation. From this perspective, Telerehabilitation (TR) plays an important role. TR consists of the application of telemedicine to rehabilitation to offer remote rehabilitation services to the population unable to reach healthcare. TR integrates therapy-recovery-assistance, with continuity of treatments, aimed at neurological and psychological recovery, involving the patient in a family environment, with an active role also of the caregivers. This leads to reduced healthcare costs and improves the continuity of specialist care, as well as showing efficacy for the treatment of cognitive disorders, and leading to advantages for patients and their families, such as avoiding travel, reducing associated costs, improving the frequency, continuity, and comfort of performing the rehabilitation in its own spaces, times and arrangements. The aim of this consensus paper is to investigate the current evidence on the use and effectiveness of TR in the cognitive field, trying to also suggest some recommendations and future perspectives. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first consensus paper among multiple expert researchers that comprehensively examines TR in different neurological diseases. Our results supported the efficacy and feasibility of TR with good adherence and no adverse events among patients. Our consensus summarizes the current evidence for the application of cognitive TR in neurological populations, highlighting the potential of this tool, but also the limitations that need to be explored further.

Indexed as

cognitive rehabilitationneurological diseasesneurorehabilitationremote rehabilitationtelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38426164
PMCPMC10902044
OpenAlexW4391841613

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.