Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39561143›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Adverse events associated with the delivery of telerehabilitation across rehabilitation populations: A scoping review.

Thomas Yau, Josh Chan, McKyla McIntyre, Damanveer Bhogal, Angie Andreoli, Carl Froilan D Leochico, Mark Bayley, Ailene Kua, Meiqi Guo, Sarah Munce

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. The Importance of Telerehabilitation and Future Directions for the Field.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Thomas YauTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Josh ChanWestern University, London, Ontario, Canada.
McKyla McIntyreToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8317-3200
Damanveer BhogalTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Angie AndreoliToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Carl Froilan D LeochicoTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2928-2083
Mark BayleyTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ailene KuaToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2602-9058
Meiqi GuoToronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8931-5935
Sarah MunceRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0595-8395

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis scoping review aimed to map existing research on adverse events encountered during telerehabilitation delivery, across rehabilitation populations. This includes identifying characteristics of adverse events (frequency/physical/non-physical, relatedness, severity) and examining adverse events by different modes of telerehabilitation delivery and disease states.

introductionTelerehabilitation, a subset of telemedicine, has gained traction during the COVID-19 pandemic for remote service delivery. However, no prior scoping review, systematic review, or meta-analysis has identified and summarized the current primary research on adverse events in telerehabilitation. Understanding adverse events, such as falls during physiotherapy or aspiration pneumonia during speech therapy, is crucial for identifying limitations and optimizing delivery through risk mitigation and quality indicators. This understanding could also help to improve the uptake of telerehabilitation among clinicians and patients. This review addresses this gap by summarizing published literature on adverse events during telerehabilitation.

methodsThe review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The review protocol was registered and published on Open Science Framework. A comprehensive search across multiple databases (MEDLINE ALL/EMBASE/APA PsycINFO/CENTRAL/CINAHL) was conducted. Screening, extraction, and synthesis were performed in duplicate and independently. Data extraction followed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication framework and also involved extraction on authors, publication year (pre- or post-COVID), population, sample size, and modes of telerehabilitation delivery (asynchronous, synchronous, hybrid). For synthesis, data were summarized quantitatively using numerical counts and qualitatively via content analysis. The data were grouped by intervention type and by type of adverse event. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This scoping review included qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2013-2023, written in English, and conducted in any geographic area. All modes of telerehabilitation delivery were included. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries, protocols, opinion pieces, conference abstracts, and case series with fewer than five participants were excluded.

resultsThe search identified 11,863 references, and 81 studies were included in this review with a total of 3,057 participants (mean age:59.3 years; females:44.6%). Modes of telerehabilitation delivery (whether asynchronous, synchronous or hybrid) used in the studies included videoconferencing (52), phone calls (25), text messaging (4), email (6), mobile apps (10), and internet-based virtual reality systems (3). A total of 295 adverse events occurred during 84,534 sessions (0.3%), with the majority being physical (e.g., falls or musculoskeletal pain), non-serious/non-severe/mild, and unrelated to (i.e., not caused by) to the telerehabilitation provided.

conclusionsFrom the 81 included studies, telerehabilitation was delivered with related adverse events being rare, and mostly characterized as mild/non-severe. A comparable occurrence of adverse events (~30%) was found between asynchronous and synchronous telerehabilitation studies. When categorized by disease type, cardiac telerehabilitation studies had the most frequent adverse events. Detailed reporting of telerehabilitation interventions and adverse event characteristics is recommended for future studies (i.e., use of TIDieR reporting guidelines). Telerehabilitation has the potential to make rehabilitation services more accessible to patients; however, more evidence on the safety of telerehabilitation is needed.

Indexed as

TelerehabilitationCOVID-19HumansPandemics

Identifiers

PMID39561143
PMCPMC11575805

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.