SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on upper limb function in patients with systemic sclerosis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically synthesize the available evidence regarding the effects of rehabilitation interventions on upper limb function, pain and activity performance in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc), and to further evaluate the limitations of current evidence base and the comparative effectiveness of rehabilitation delivery modes. Methods: Computer searches of databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, the SinoMed (China Biomedical Literature Service System), CNKI, WanFang Data Knowledge Service Platform,and VIP were conducted to collect randomized controlled trials on rehabilitation interventions for upper limb function in patients with systemic sclerosis, with search time spanning from database inception (January 1, 1990) to May 2026. Considering the limited number, high clinical heterogeneity and generally moderate-to-high methodological bias risk of included trials, this study adopted a combination of meta-analysis and cautious narrative synthesis. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and assessed the quality of included studies using the bias risk assessment tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software for outcomes with acceptable heterogeneity. Results: A total of 8 studies were included, with a total of 729 cases. The overall evidence base is limited, with no high-quality low-bias Grade A studies, and a single large trial dominates the pooled weight of many analyses. Meta-analysis results showed that patients with systemic sclerosis who received rehabilitation intervention demonstrated significant improvements in pain [MD = -4.41, 95% CI (-6.54, -2.29), Conclusion: Rehabilitation interventions have a positive effect on the hand function, hand mobility, and local upper limb function of patients with systemic sclerosis, and can also aid in pain relief. However, rehabilitation cannot improve the multidimensional overall disease status reflected by SHAQ. Current evidence is limited by small trial quantity, high heterogeneity and suboptimal methodological quality; firm definitive conclusions and practice-changing recommendations cannot be drawn. Face-to-face rehabilitation displays only preliminary favorable signals compared with remote rehabilitation, and definite superiority cannot be verified. In clinical practice, rehabilitation programs may be selected based on individual patient circumstances with very cautious reference to the limited evidence base. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=1019908, PROSPERO CRD420251019908.
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.