SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Comparative effectiveness of telerehabilitation vs. face-to-face rehabilitation in adults with chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a major cause of disability worldwide and creates substantial rehabilitation demand. When core rehabilitation content is similar, the comparative effectiveness of telerehabilitation (TR) and face-to-face rehabilitation as delivery modes remains unclear. Methods: Methods: This meta-analysis used strict eligibility criteria to distinguish the two delivery pathways and better isolate delivery-mode effects. PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials in adults with CLBP. Paper-based home exercise programs, continuous hybrid delivery, and remote-assessment-only designs were excluded. Random-effects meta-analyses used standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RoB 2 and GRADE assessed risk of bias and evidence certainty. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Results: Ten trials involving 562 participants were included. Content-matched primary analyses found no significant difference between TR and face-to-face rehabilitation in pain intensity (7 trials; SMD = -0.05, 95% CI - 0.34 to 0.24; very low certainty) or functional disability (8 trials; SMD = 0.22, 95% CI - 0.07 to 0.52; low certainty). In secondary analyses including two trials that provided manual therapy only to the face-to-face group, pain intensity did not differ significantly (9 trials; SMD = -0.01, 95% CI - 0.26 to 0.24), whereas functional disability favored face-to-face rehabilitation (10 trials; SMD = 0.26, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52). Subgroup interaction tests were nonsignificant for intervention duration, weekly treatment frequency, and supervision status. Conclusion: When rehabilitation content was similar, TR and face-to-face rehabilitation showed no statistically significant differences in pain intensity or functional disability. However, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalent effectiveness between TR and face-to-face rehabilitation, because the certainty of evidence was low for functional disability and very low for pain intensity, and the functional disability estimate was sensitive to the exclusion of one study. Future high-quality trials with comparable interventions and longer follow-up are needed, particularly direct comparisons of supervised and unsupervised TR. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD420261467122.
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.