ReviewJournal of pain research2025
A Systematic Review on Health Economic Evaluations of Telerehabilitation for Chronic Spinal Pain.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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.
- Economic burden of recurrent low back pain among working-age adults in Poland: a 3-year retrospective observational analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
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: Telerehabilitation can improve clinical outcomes by increasing access to and adherence to rehabilitation protocols, leading to favourable benefits in overall quality of life at a reasonable cost. This systematic review aims to conduct a thorough analysis of published health economic evaluations of standalone telerehabilitation interventions for individuals with chronic spinal pain, focusing on reported costs and clinical outcomes. Methods: An extensive search was conducted in English across four general medical databases and three health economic databases. The studies' quality was evaluated using the updated Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Results: Five economic evaluations were identified, comprising three high-quality and two medium-quality studies. Among these studies, four indicated that telerehabilitation interventions were more cost-effective than standard treatment and conventional physical therapy from a social and healthcare perspective. The sixth study, which lacked a comparison group, also demonstrated that the use of remote follow-ups and programming for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) devices in chronic spinal pain is cost-effective. Conclusion: Telerehabilitation, particularly telerehabilitation-based McKenzie therapy (TBMT), may represent the most economically efficient approach compared to conventional treatment interventions for individuals with chronic lumbar spine pain. For a more robust conclusion, it is imperative to conduct comprehensive economic evaluations using larger sample sizes over extended periods across multiple countries.
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.