Trial reportJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025
Telerehabilitation versus face-to-face physical therapy for middle-aged patients with degenerative meniscal tear in China: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to traditional face- to-face physical therapy for patients with degenerative meniscal tears in Shanghai, China.
designA two-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted across two hospitals in Shanghai, China Subjects/Patients: Participants with clinically diagnosed degenerative meniscal tears were randomly assigned to either the telerehabilitation group or the face-to-face physical therapy group.
methodsBoth groups underwent a 12-week intervention. Participants in telerehabilitation group used a digital platform for remote physical therapy, while participants in physical therapy group received traditional clinic-based rehabilitation. A predefined non-inferiority margin of 10 points on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was applied to determine clinical equivalence between the interventions.
resultsBoth groups demonstrated significant improvements in knee function and quality of life, with no significant differences in the KOOS, SF-36, or functional tests at any time point (p > 0.05). Both groups had high adherence rates, with no significant differences in exercise completion or satisfaction scores. The TELE group had a significantly lower total cost compared to the PT group (p < 0.001), demonstrating greater cost-effectiveness.
conclusionTelerehabilitation was found to be clinically non-inferior to face-to-face physical therapy for improving knee function, pain, and quality of life in patients with degenerative meniscal tears. It offered significant cost savings, making it a cost-effective alternative to traditional in-person rehabilitation.
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.