Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital and Conventional Rehabilitation Aftercare on Work Ability in Orthopedic Patients: A Longitudinal Study in Germany.
Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a general practitioner-based rehabilitation follow-up consultation to promote patients' use of medical rehabilitation aftercare: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trial.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- [A smart way back to work-The impact of digital rehabilitation on return-to-work outcomes after hand injuries].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- [Framework conditions for rehabilitation measures in conservatively treated spinal disorders : Options and differences].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of digital rehabilitation aftercare (digIRENA) with conventional rehabilitation aftercare (IRENA) and a control group without organized aftercare in improving work ability among orthopedic patients.
methodsA total of 1056 orthopedic rehabilitation patients were recruited from multiple rehabilitation clinics in Germany and randomly assigned to three groups: digIRENA (n = 405), IRENA (n = 352), or a control group (n = 299). Work ability was assessed using the short version of the Work Ability Index at four time points: baseline, 13, 26, and 43 weeks post-baseline. Repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to examine longitudinal trends in work ability, with additional analyses to assess the impact of age, gender, and employment status on outcomes.
resultsWork ability improved significantly over time in all three groups (F = 37.6, p < 0.01, η
conclusionIn unadjusted comparisons, digital aftercare showed a steeper initial improvement in work ability. However, once key sociodemographic factors were controlled for, these group differences disappeared.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.