| Adamse et al [46] |
|
Telemedicine vs no intervention showed lower scores for pain (MDa –0.57, 95% CI –0.81 to –0.34) Nonsignificant effects shown for function (MD 19.93, 95% CI –5.20 to 45.06 minutes per week)
|
| Adhikari et al [47] |
|
NPRS demonstrated significantly decreased pain: at rest: F=3.5, P<.04; when worst: F=26.4, P<.001; during activity: F=16.6, P<.001; during occupation: F=15.6, P<.001
|
| Azma et al [48] |
Pain: KOOSc Function: WOMACd
|
In both groups, KOOS scores increased from baseline to 6 months (50.6 to 83.1 and 49.8 to 81.8) No significant difference in either group in any of the studied scales
|
| Bini and Mahajan [49] |
|
|
| Chen et al [50] |
|
|
| Correia et al [51] |
|
|
| Dunphy et al [52] |
|
Patients’ six themes: experience of TRAKm, reasons for engagement, strengths, weaknesses, future use, and attitudes to digital health care Physiotherapists’ three themes: potential benefits, availability of resources, and service organization to support TRAK
|
| Eriksson et al [53] |
|
Six categories were identified: a different reinforced communication, pain-free exercising as an effective routine, from a dependent patient to a strengthened person at home, closeness at a distance, facilitated daily living, and continuous physiotherapy chain
|
| Eriksson et al [54] |
|
|
| Gialanella et al [55] |
|
At 6 months, neck pain and disability decreased in both groups (P<.001), with the decline being more marked in HBTo group (P=.001) 87.2% of patients undergoing HBT and 65.9% of control participants were performing home exercises (2-7 sessions per week)
|
| Irvine et al [56] |
|
At posttest, intervention participation showed significant improvement on 13 of 14 outcome measures compared with control participants At 6 months, intervention participants maintained large improvements on all 14 outcomes compared with control participants
|
| Jay et al [57] |
Descriptive statistics: training frequency, use of written and video material, training adherence, and pre- to posttraining self-perceived pain of the neck, shoulder, arm, and wrist
|
|
| Lade et al [58] |
|
There was substantial agreement for validity in systems diagnosis (73%; P=.01) Almost perfect intrarater reliability (90%; P=.001) Interrater reliability had a weaker agreement (64%; P=.11)
|
| Lawford et al [59] |
|
Participants described positive experiences with received therapy via telephone, valuing convenience and accessibility Some desired visual contact with the physiotherapist Participants valued undivided attention from the physiotherapist and were able to communicate effectively over the phone Participants felt confident performing their exercise program without supervision
|
| Lovo et al [60] |
|
|
| Mani et al [61] |
|
11 articles were reviewed Studies were moderate to good in quality Physiotherapy assessments of pain, swelling, ROM, muscle strength, balance, gait, and functional assessment demonstrated good validity Low to moderate validity for lumbar spine posture, special orthopedic tests, neurodynamic tests, and scar assessments
|
| Mecklenburg et al [62] |
Pain: KOOS Function: KOOS-PS
|
Digital care program demonstrated a statistically significantly higher reduction in pain (7.7, 95% CI 3.0 to 12.3; P=.002) A statistically significantly greater improvement in function (7.2, 95% CI 3.0 to 11.5; P=.001)
|
| Meijer et al [63] |
|
12 studies were included Studies were low to moderate quality 2 studies found beneficial effects of serious games compared with conventional therapy 1 of 3 studies found beneficial effects of serious games 1 of 5 trials found a statistically significant advantage in the serious game group regarding treatment adherence
|
| Nelson et al [64] |
Function: SF-12r QoLs: HOOSt subscale
|
No between-group difference detected in the HOOS subscale (P=.97) Strength, balance, and self-reported function showed no between-group difference
|
| Pastora-Bernal et al [65] |
|
|
| Peterson [66] |
|
All patients met their individual goals Excellent home exercise program adherence was displayed Temporary increase in pain was noted; however, patients managed via telerehabilitation booster sessions and no other resources
|
| Piqueras et al [67] |
|
|
| Richardson et al [68] |
|
System of pathology in agreement in 17 (94%) out of 18 cases Comparisons of objective findings demonstrated substantial agreement (Cohen κ=0.635) for categorical and binary data (χ2=400.4; P<.001) High intrarater (89%) and moderate interrater (67%) reliability was evident for telerehabilitation assessments
|
| Rothgangel et al [69] |
|
Platform use was generally limited, with the number of log-ins ranging from 3 to 73 Overall, therapists’ acceptance was low to moderate Average scores ranged from 2.5 (SD 1.1) to 4.9 (SD 1.5)
|
| Russell et al [70] |
|
Similar agreement (93.3%) was found in pathoanatomical diagnoses An 80% agreement (χ2=4.3; P<.04) in primary systems diagnoses found between face-to-face and web-based assessments Very strong agreement (κ=.92) for categorical data and significant agreement (93.3% agreement; χ2=234.4; P<.001) for binary data
|
| Shukla et al [71] |
Pain: VAS Functional assessment: TUG test Functional capacity: WOMAC Knee movement and quadriceps strength
|
Six studies included No statistically significant difference in change in active knee extension or flexion in the home telerehabilitation group compared with the control group (MD −0.52, 95% CI −1.39 to 0.35, P=.24 and MD 1.14, 95% CI −0.61 to 2.89, P=.20)
|
| Tousignant et al [72] |
|
|
| Wijnen et al [73] |
|
|
