Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39502480›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Telerehabilitation solutions in patient pathways: An overview of systematic reviews.

Benoit Nicolas, Emilie Leblong, Bastien Fraudet, Philippe Gallien, Patrice Piette

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. 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
–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.

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.

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

5 authors.

Benoit NicolasPôle Saint Helier, Rehabilitation Center, Rennes, France.
Emilie LeblongPôle Saint Helier, Rehabilitation Center, Rennes, France.
Bastien FraudetPôle Saint Helier, Rehabilitation Center, Rennes, France.
Philippe GallienPôle Saint Helier, Rehabilitation Center, Rennes, France.
Patrice PiettePôle Saint Helier, Rehabilitation Center, Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3926-2855

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Telerehabilitation (TR), a branch of telemedicine, provides remote therapeutic rehabilitation through telecommunication. Driven by technological advances and benefits like remote monitoring and patient education, it has grown since 1998. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted its importance in maintaining healthcare access. Research question: What is the efficacy of TR compared to in-person rehabilitation? Are the assessment tools effective? Is TR well-accepted, and are costs reduced? Methods: A bibliographic search on Medline, Cochrane and Google Scholar focused on systematic reviews (SRs) from 2014 to Mai 2024, comparing TR or home-based rehabilitation with in person treatments for various conditions. Independent reviewers conducted initial screenings, resolving disagreements by a third reviewer. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to evaluate the quality of review. The data was synthesised narratively. Results: The search identified 665 SRs. After selection, 228 SR were included. TR models include synchronous (real-time video interactions), asynchronous (independent sessions through digital platforms) and mixed methods. Regardless of the medical fields, the conclusions of the SRs consistently point to the equivalence of TR compared to in-person rehabilitation. Remote evaluations via digital tools were reliable and valid for various assessments. TR is cost effectiveness and well accepted. Conclusions: TR is a viable alternative or complement to traditional rehabilitation, offering enhanced accessibility, reduced costs and improved results. Barriers include technical issues, training and concerns about lack of physical contact. Mixed methods could address these challenges.

Indexed as

blendedremote assessmentreview of systematic reviewsTelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39502480
PMCPMC11536572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.