Trial reportTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Telemedicine versus conventional care for nonspecific neck pain: a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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.
- Letter to the editor: Telemedicine versus conventional care for nonspecific neck pain: a randomized controlled study.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Telemedicine (TM) can overcome travel barriers in nonspecific neck pain (NNP), yet a comprehensive, physiatrist-supervised TM model has not been directly compared to standard in-clinic care. The aim of this study was to determine whether a video-based exercise and remote follow-up program is as effective as conventional follow-up in reducing pain and disability in NNP. Materials and methods: This parallel-group randomized controlled trial (registered in ClinicalTrials.gov) included 68 adults (mean age = 40.52 years) with NNP who were randomly allocated 1:1 to the TM group (TG, n = 34) or control group (CG, n = 34). Both received identical exercises via prerecorded video (TG) or printed brochure (CG) to be performed for 3 months. TG visits were via video call; CG visits were in the clinic. Primary outcomes were pain measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, day 15, month 1, and 3, and disability measured by the neck disability index (NDI) at baseline and month 3. Secondary outcomes were exercise adherence, patient satisfaction, and travel/time burden. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle using linear mixed models. Results: Both groups achieved clinically important VAS reductions (TG: 6.56 to 3.02, CG: 6.44 to 2.96). The only between-group difference appeared at day 15, favoring CG (p = 0.038) and the group × time interaction was nonsignificant overall (p = 0.111). NDI improved similarly in both groups (p = 0.473). Adherence in TG and CG (67.90% and 71.21%, respectively) and satisfaction (4.25 and 4.42, respectively) were comparable. TG participants avoided a mean of 38.88 km/175.74 min of travel across 3 virtual visits. Conclusion: A structured TM program with remote physiatrist follow-up matches conventional outpatient care in managing NNP. Larger, long-term studies should define optimal support and assess cost effectiveness across diverse populations.
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.