SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
The effectiveness of telerehabilitation in upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTelerehabilitative services have been increasingly used in recent years, raising questions about their effectiveness. In musculoskeletal disorders, evidence supports telerehabilitation but methodological quality of evidence is limited and focused on lower limb disorders. Hence, this systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in upper limb musculoskeletal disorders.
methodsWe conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, Embase, and AMED (up until 11/27/2024), complemented by hand searches. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing upper limb musculoskeletal disorders reporting on pain, activities of daily living (ADL), or health-related quality of life (HrQol) were included. We focused on studies from high-income countries in English or German. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals were derived from meta-analysis, where negative values favor telerehabilitation. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. We grouped studies comparing telerehabilitation to standard care (subgrouped into in-person or minimal intervention) and separately examined studies with a tele-adjunct. Compared to in-person rehabilitation we assessed whether outcomes were similarly improved with telerehabilitation. For tele-interventions as adjunct or compared to minimal care we assessed whether telerehabilitation improved outcomes.
resultsWe included twenty RCTs representing 1,285 participants. All NRSIs were excluded due to critically high risk of bias. Compared to in-person rehabilitation, telerehabilitation showed similar improvements with very low certainty of evidence in pain (SMD: -0.33 [-1.16 to 0.5] VAS/NRS), moderate in ADL (SMD: -0.07 [-0.31 to 0.17] QuickDASH/DASH), and low in HrQol (SMD: -0.26 [-0.82 to 0.31]). Compared to brochure-based exercising, certainty of evidence was low for improved pain (SMD: -0.28 [-0.58 to 0.03]), moderate in ADL (SMD: -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.24]), and low in HrQol (SMD: -0.31 [-0.65 to 0.02]). Tele-adjunct yielded low certainty of evidence for improvements in pain (SMD: -0.38 [-0.71 to -0.05]) and moderate in ADL (SMD: -0.51 [-0.88 to -0.14).
conclusionsOur results tend to support the effectiveness of telerehabilitation across different comparisons although certainty of evidence is inconclusive. Future studies should particularly investigate the non-inferiority of telerehabilitation compared to in-person rehabilitation and the added benefit of tele-adjunct.
trial registrationProspero registration ID: CRD42024622465.
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.