ArticleTelemedicine reports2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Telerehabilitation to Standard Care for Ankle Sprains Compared with Standard Care Alone.
Article in Telemedicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ankle sprain (AS) is a common musculoskeletal injury. While telerehabilitation is an effective treatment for various musculoskeletal conditions, evidence on its cost-effectiveness for AS is lacking. Methods: A cost-effectiveness study was conducted through a 4-week randomized controlled trial in individuals with AS. The control group ( Results: At 4 weeks, the intervention group showed a gain of 78 points in functionality for FAAM-ADL and 80.2 points for FAAM-sports, while the control group scored 69.1 and 61.6, respectively. When the costs of work incapacity were considered, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of adding telerehabilitation per point gained in FAAM-ADL functionality was US$ -14.4 and US$ -8.5 for FAAM-sports. When work incapacity costs were excluded, the ICER was US$ -0.7 and US$ -0.4, respectively. Conclusions: Adding telerehabilitation to standard care for AS was cost-saving, achieving greater effectiveness at a lower cost. This is more evident when direct costs are considered together with the costs of work incapacity.
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.