ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Remote Therapeutic Monitoring in Musculoskeletal Pain Medicine: A Systematic Review and Comparison with Remote Physiologic Monitoring.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Remote physiologic monitoring (RPM) and remote therapeutic monitoring (RTM) are growing digital health applications. The use of RPM, focusing on objective physiologic data, has been supported by evidence for managing chronic conditions. RTM, which collects subjective patient-reported data, is newer, but offers great potential in musculoskeletal (MSK) rehabilitation and chronic pain management that has already been recognized clinically and by reimbursement frameworks. However, in comparison with RPM, there is limited evidence directly assessing whether RTM contributes to improved clinical outcomes. This review compares the quality of current evidence for improved clinical outcomes from RTM in MSK and pain-related conditions with RPM in chronic disease management. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted through March 2025 using keywords related to remote monitoring, digital health, and MSK conditions. Only reviews and meta-analyses were included for RPM, while both primary and review studies were considered for RTM, restricted to MSK or pain-related outcomes. Three reviewers independently screened and read all articles to reduce risk of bias. Results: 22 studies met inclusion criteria (9 RPM, 13 RTM). RPM reviews consistently demonstrated clinical benefits, including reduced blood pressure, HbA1c, and hospitalizations. Across RTM studies, feasibility, patient satisfaction, and engagement were consistently high, although studies were heterogeneous, with some yielding improved pain and activity levels, while others found no difference relative to usual care. Conclusion: RTM consistently demonstrates strong feasibility and patient engagement in MSK rehabilitation and chronic pain management, though evidence for clinical superiority compared to standard care remains limited. Future studies should emphasize larger randomized trials with standardized functional outcomes, therapy adherence, and integration into rehabilitation and pain management workflows.
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.