Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 6;18(1):e0276354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276354

Considerations for ensuring safety during telerehabilitation of people with stroke. A protocol for a scoping review

Ruvistay Gutierrez-Arias 1,2,*, Camila González-Mondaca 2,#, Vinka Marinkovic-Riffo 2,#, Marietta Ortiz-Puebla 2,#, Fernanda Paillán-Reyes 2,#, Pamela Seron 3,4
Editor: Fatih Özden5
PMCID: PMC9821787  PMID: 36608020

Abstract

Introduction

Exercise interventions have a positive impact on people with stroke. However, access to exercise interventions is variable, and there may be a delay in the start of rehabilitation. Telerehabilitation has enabled the delivery of exercise interventions replacing the traditional face-to-face approach. Aspects related to the safety of people with stroke should be considered to avoid adverse events during the delivery of exercise interventions remotely. However, such information is scattered in the literature, and the detail with which measures taken during the implementation of exercise interventions for people with stroke are reported is unknown.

Objective

To summarise measures or aspects targeted at reducing the incidence of adverse events during the delivery of exercise interventions through telerehabilitation in patients after stroke.

Materials and methods

A scoping review will be conducted. A systematic search in MEDLINE-Ovid, Embase-Ovid CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and other resources will be carried out. We will include primary studies, published in full text in any language, involving people with stroke who undergo telerehabilitation where exercise is the main component. Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data, and disagreements will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The results will be reported in a narrative form, using tables and figures to support them.

Discussion

To implement this strategy within rehabilitation services, one of the first aspects to be solved is to ensure the safety of people. The results of this scoping review could contribute an information base for clinicians and decision-makers when designing remotely delivered exercise intervention programs.

Registration number

INPLASY202290104.

Introduction

Stroke is a disease characterized by a focal deficit due to acute injury to the central nervous system [1]. This injury of vascular origin includes cerebral infarction and intracerebral or subarachnoid hemorrhage [1]. Stroke is the second leading cause of death and disability worldwide, resulting in a high burden of disease, especially in low- and middle-income countries [2]. The reported prevalence of stroke globally in 2016 was 80.1 million (95% CI 74.1–86.3) [3].

The sequelae in people with stroke are diverse [4]. Regarding physical function post-stroke, functional impairment of the upper and lower extremities is common, which may be due to weakness or paralysis, sensory loss, spasticity, and abnormal motor synergies [5]. In addition, a near 15% prevalence of sarcopenia has been found in people with stroke [6]. Gait impairment has been observed in a high percentage of people with stroke [7, 8], a dysfunction that may persist despite rehabilitation [9].

More than 50% of people with stroke may experience limitations in activities such as shopping, housework, and difficulty reintegrating into community life within 6 months [10]. These restrictions can result in a diminished health-related quality of life [1012].

Rehabilitation is a multiple and comprehensive intervention, of which exercise is one of the main components. Exercise interventions have a positive impact on people with stroke [13], with a small to moderate effect on the quality of life (standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.07)) [14], and an increase in cognitive performance [15]. However, access to exercise interventions is variable [1618], and there may be a delay in the start of physical rehabilitation [19]. This could be made worse in contexts such as the COVID-19 pandemic, however, strategies such as telerehabilitation were implemented, which contributed to continued service delivery [20].

Telerehabilitation has enabled the delivery of exercise interventions replacing the traditional face-to-face approach in patient-rehabilitator interaction [21]. The potential for telerehabilitation to achieve similar clinical outcomes to traditional rehabilitation, and better than no rehabilitation at all [2225], should prompt healthcare facilities to evaluate implementing remote delivery of exercise interventions for people with stroke. Telerehabilitation in stroke patients can be used to deliver interventions aimed at improving cognitive [26], physical [22, 27], speech [28] and swallowing function [29].

For this, in addition to logistics and costs, aspects related to the safety of people with stroke should be considered to avoid adverse events during the delivery of exercise interventions. This information could be reported from studies that have evaluated the feasibility, safety, or effectiveness of telerehabilitation in this population. However, such information is scattered in the literature, and the detail with which measures taken during the implementation of exercise interventions for people with stroke are reported is unknown. Therefore, this study aims to summarise measures or aspects targeted at reducing the incidence of adverse events during the delivery of exercise interventions through telerehabilitation in patients after stroke.

Materials and methods

A scoping review will be conducted following the updated recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [30]. The protocol for this review was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY) under the number INPLASY202290104, and it was reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) (S1 Checklist) [31]. The results will be reported following the Extension for Scoping Reviews of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement (PRISMA-ScR) [32].

Search strategy

A systematic search of MEDLINE, through the Ovid platform; Embase, through the Ovid platform; Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), through the Cochrane Library; and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature Complete (CINAHL Complete), through the EBSCOhost platform. The strategy will consider a sensitive approach and the use of controlled language (MeSH, EMTREE, CINAHL Subject Heading) and natural language. The strategy to be used for MEDLINE-Ovid will be adapted to construct the search in the other databases (Table 1).

Table 1. Search strategy for MEDLINE using the Ovid platform.

Search term
1 exp Cerebrovascular Disorders/
2 exp basal ganglia cerebrovascular disease/
3 exp brain ischemia/
4 exp carotid artery diseases/
5 exp cerebral small vessel diseases/
6 exp intracranial arterial diseases/
7 exp "intracranial embolism and thrombosis"/
8 exp intracranial hemorrhages/
9 exp stroke/
10 exp brain infarction/
11 exp stroke, lacunar/
12 exp vasospasm, intracranial/
13 exp vertebral artery dissection/
14 (stroke$ or poststroke or apoplex$ or cerebral vasc$ or brain vasc$ or cerebrovasc$ or cva$ or SAH).ti,ab.
15 ((brain$ or cerebr$ or cerebell$ or vertebrobasil$ or hemispher$ or intracran$ or intracerebral or infratentorial or supratentorial or middle cerebral artery or MCA$ or anterior circulation or posterior circulation or basilar artery or vertebral artery or space-occupying) adj5 (isch?emi$ or infarct$ or thrombo$ or emboli$ or occlus$ or hypoxi$)).ti,ab.
16 ((brain$ or cerebr$ or cerebell$ or intracerebral or intracran$ or parenchymal or intraparenchymal or intraventricular or infratentorial or supratentorial or basal gangli$ or putaminal or putamen or posterior fossa or hemispher$ or subarachnoid) adj5 (h?emorrhag$ or h?ematoma$ or bleed$)).tw.
17 or/1-16
18 Telerehabilitation/
19 exp Videoconferencing/
20 telecommunications/
21 Remote Consultation/
22 (telemetry or telerehab$ or tele-rehab$ or telehealth or tele-health or telehomecare or telehomecare or telecoaching or tele-coaching or videoconference$ or video-conferenc$ or videoconsultation or video-consultation or teleconference$ or tele-conference$ or teleconsultation or tele-consultation or telecare or telecare).ti,ab.
23 (ehealth or e-health or "mobile health" or mhealth or m-health).ti,ab.
24 ((remote$ or distance$ or distant) adj5 (rehab$ or therap$ or treatment or consultation)).ti,ab.
25 ((rehab$ or therap$ or treatment or consultation) adj5 (telephone$ or phone$ or video$ or internet$ or computer$ or modem or web$ or email)).ti,ab.
26 or/18-25
27 17 and 26
28 systematic review/
29 meta-analysis/
30 (meta analy$ or metanaly$ or metaanaly$).ti,ab.
31 ((systematic or evidence) adj2 (review$ or overview$)).ti,ab.
32 (reference list$ or bibliograph$ or hand search$ or manual search$ or relevant journals).ab.
33 (medline or pubmed or cochrane or embase or psychlit or psyclit or psychinfo or psycinfo or cinahl or science citation index or bids or cancerlit).ab.
34 cochrane.jw.
35 or/28-34
36 27 not 35
37 animals/ not humans/
38 36 not 37

The search will not be limited by publication date, publication status, or the language of the studies. Filters will be applied to the different strategies to exclude systematic reviews, with and without meta-analysis, from the search results.

In addition, studies included in systematic reviews aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in stroke patients will be screened.

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria for study selection will be divided into participants or populations included in the studies, the concept or phenomenon involved, and the context in which the studies were conducted (i.e. population, concept and context (PCC) framework) [30]. In addition, the design of the studies will be considered for inclusion in this review.

Participants

This review will include studies involving people with stroke, regardless of type, cause, the time course of the disease and sequelae caused.

Concept

This review will include studies where exercise interventions are delivered through telerehabilitation. Exercise interventions shall be understood as a subcategory of physical activity that is planned, structured, repetitive, and purposefully focused on improving or maintaining one or more components of physical fitness [33].

Interventions may be delivered synchronously, asynchronously, or mixed. Studies in which the professional delivering the intervention has face-to-face contact with the person with stroke to conduct assessments or educational sessions on the exercises to be performed (hybrid programmes) will not be excluded. The methodology for delivering interventions remotely may be by videoconferencing, mobile phone, pre-recorded videos, text message reminders, web platforms or apps.

Context

This review will include studies in which people with stroke perform the exercises as prescribed outside the hospital setting, either at home or in community centres, and can be performed individually or in groups. The therapist may or may not be remotely supervising the exercise sessions.

Study designs

Primary studies (randomised or non-randomised clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control, cross-sectional, and case reports, among others) will be included. In terms of publication status, studies in which only the abstract is available, such as those presented in conference proceedings, will be excluded. In addition, survey-based studies assessing barriers and facilitators of telerehabilitation in people with stroke will be excluded.

Studies that do not report a clinical outcome, such as level of function, quality of life, muscle strength, safety, among others, as well as the level of satisfaction, will be excluded.

The language as well as the publication date of the studies will not limit their inclusion.

Selection of studies

Once the search for studies has been conducted, titles and abstracts will be independently screened by two research team members, who will discard studies irrelevant to this review. Subsequently, the full texts of the potential studies to be included will be analyzed to determine which articles meet all the eligibility criteria. The Rayyan® app will be used for this stage [34]. This tool improves the efficiency of the study selection process both in the title-abstract and full-text screening phase, eliminates duplicate records, facilitates the construction of the study selection diagram and helps to resolve disagreements.

Information extraction

Two reviewers will independently extract information from the included studies. An extraction form specifically designed to meet the objectives of this review will be used and will be developed in a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet.

The information to be extracted will include aspects related to the characteristics of the publications and studies, as well as the population, interventions delivered (type of exercise and technological media used), and outcomes assessed (Table 2). In studies reporting on measures implemented to prevent adverse events during telerehabilitation sessions, detailed information will be extracted, such as the time of delivery of the intervention, the professional involved, the specific measure implemented, among others.

Table 2. Information to be extracted from the included studies.
Information Description
Identification of the studies Title of the study, name of the journal, year of publication, authors’ names, and authors’ nationality.
Classification of studies Aim of the study, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and level of evidence according to the Oxford scale [35].
Exercise interventions Type of exercise, dosage, duration of the session and the complete program, and prescribing professional.
Method used for telerehabilitation Synchronicity and technology used to deliver the intervention.
Outcomes List of outcomes assessed and reported in the study, other than adverse events.
Adverse events Incidence and description of adverse events arising from telerehabilitation.
Conclusions Conclusions related to the safety of delivering exercise interventions remotely.

In case the information presented by the studies is unclear or missing, the authors of the studies will not be contacted, as this scoping review also aims to assess the completeness of the reporting of the studies.

Reviewers involved in study selection and data extraction should have clinical experience in the care of stroke patients through tele-rehabilitation, as well as training in conducting evidence synthesis studies. A novice reviewer will always be paired with a senior reviewer.

For both the selection and extraction phases, disagreements will be resolved by consensus. If this is not achieved a third reviewer will make the final decision.

Synthesis of information

The results of the search and selection of studies will be reported through a PRISMA flow chart [36]. In addition, the reasons for the exclusion of full-text evaluated studies will be reported in a table.

The results will be reported in narrative form, and tables and figures will be used to synthesize the information. Waffle charts [37], or similar, will be used to represent the different primary study designs included, and the frequency of reporting of measures implemented to prevent adverse events during telerehabilitation. In addition, the frequency of the different measures implemented will be reported in one or more figures.

Discussion

Different situations, such as the pandemic caused by COVID-19, may require the restructuring of health services to maintain people’s health care, such as rehabilitation interventions [20].

Telerehabilitation appears as an alternative that can contribute to this challenge, especially for people with stroke, due to their high disease burden [2]. To implement this strategy within rehabilitation services, one of the first aspects to be solved is to ensure the safety of people [38, 39].

The results of this scoping review could contribute an information base for clinicians and decision-makers when designing remotely delivered exercise intervention programs. In addition, knowledge gaps will be observed, which will serve as a basis for future research on this important topic.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Sacco RL, Kasner SE, Broderick JP, Caplan LR, Connors JJ (Buddy), Culebras A, et al. An Updated Definition of Stroke for the 21st Century. Stroke. 2013;44:2064–89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Saini V, Guada L, Yavagal DR. Global Epidemiology of Stroke and Access to Acute Ischemic Stroke Interventions. Neurology. 2021;97:S6–16. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Johnson CO, Nguyen M, Roth GA, Nichols E, Alam T, Abate D, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18:439–58. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30034-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kumar S, Selim MH, Caplan LR. Medical complications after stroke. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:105–18. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70266-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Raghavan P. Upper Limb Motor Impairment After Stroke. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2015;26:599–610. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2015.06.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ryan AS, Ivey FM, Serra MC, Hartstein J, Hafer-Macko CE. Sarcopenia and Physical Function in Middle-Aged and Older Stroke Survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98:495–9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.07.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, Choi JY, Glasberg JJ, Graham GD, et al. Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care. Stroke. 2005;36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kahn MB, Williams G, Mentiplay BF, Bower KJ, Olver J, Clark RA. Quantification of abnormal upper limb movement during walking in people with acquired brain injury. Gait Posture. 2020;81:273–80. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.08.110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hendricks HT, van Limbeek J, Geurts AC, Zwarts MJ. Motor recovery after stroke: A systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1629–37. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.35473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83:1035–42. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2002.33984 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.De Wit L, Theuns P, Dejaeger E, Devos S, Gantenbein AR, Kerckhofs E, et al. Long-term impact of stroke on patients’ health-related quality of life. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:1435–40. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1200676 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ramos-Lima MJM, Brasileiro I de C, de Lima TL, Braga-Neto P. Quality of life after stroke: impact of clinical and sociodemographic factors. Clinics. 2018;73:e418. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2017/e418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Han P, Zhang W, Kang L, Ma Y, Fu L, Jia L, et al. Clinical Evidence of Exercise Benefits for Stroke. 2017. p. 131–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ali A, Tabassum D, Baig SS, Moyle B, Redgrave J, Nichols S, et al. Effect of Exercise Interventions on Health-Related Quality of Life After Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack. Stroke. 2021;52:2445–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Oberlin LE, Waiwood AM, Cumming TB, Marsland AL, Bernhardt J, Erickson KI. Effects of Physical Activity on Poststroke Cognitive Function. Stroke. 2017;48:3093–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lynch EA, Mackintosh S, Luker JA, Hillier SL. Access to rehabilitation for patients with stroke in Australia. Med J Aust. 2019;210:21–6. doi: 10.5694/mja2.12034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Forti P, Maioli F, Magni E, Ragazzoni L, Piperno R, Zoli M, et al. Risk of Exclusion From Stroke Rehabilitation in the Oldest Old. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:477–83. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Enderby P, Pandyan A, Bowen A, Hearnden D, Ashburn A, Conroy P, et al. Accessing rehabilitation after stroke–a guessing game? Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:709–13. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2016.1160448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hall P, Williams D, Hickey A, Brewer L, Mellon L, Dolan E, et al. Access to Rehabilitation at Six Months Post Stroke: A Profile from the Action on Secondary Prevention Interventions and Rehabilitation in Stroke (ASPIRE-S) Study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;42:247–54. doi: 10.1159/000446080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Torres-Castro R, Neculhueque-Zapata X, Hrzic-Miranda K, Gutiérrez-Arias R, Valenzuela-Suazo R, Castro-Acuña C, et al. How a Developing Country Faces COVID-19 Rehabilitation: The Chilean Experience. Front Public Heal. 2022;10. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.924068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Carey JR, Durfee WK, Bhatt E, Nagpal A, Weinstein SA, Anderson KM, et al. Comparison of Finger Tracking Versus Simple Movement Training via Telerehabilitation to Alter Hand Function and Cortical Reorganization After Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21:216–32. doi: 10.1177/1545968306292381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Seron P, Oliveros M-J, Gutierrez-Arias R, Fuentes-Aspe R, Torres-Castro RC, Merino-Osorio C, et al. Effectiveness of Telerehabilitation in Physical Therapy: A Rapid Overview. Phys Ther. 2021;101. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Amatya B, Galea MP, Kesselring J, Khan F. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation interventions in persons with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2015;4:358–69. doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2015.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Seid AA, Aychiluhm SB, Mohammed AA. Effectiveness and feasibility of telerehabilitation in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e063961. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063961 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Piotrowicz E, Pencina MJ, Opolski G, Zareba W, Banach M, Kowalik I, et al. Effects of a 9-Week Hybrid Comprehensive Telerehabilitation Program on Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5:300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Torrisi M, Maresca G, De Cola MC, Cannavò A, Sciarrone F, Silvestri G, et al. Using telerehabilitation to improve cognitive function in post-stroke survivors: is this the time for the continuity of care? Int J Rehabil Res. 2019;42:344–51. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chumbler NR, Quigley P, Li X, Morey M, Rose D, Sanford J, et al. Effects of telerehabilitation on physical function and disability for stroke patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke. 2012;43:2168–74. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.646943 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Øra HP, Kirmess M, Brady MC, Sørli H, Becker F. Technical Features, Feasibility, and Acceptability of Augmented Telerehabilitation in Post-stroke Aphasia-Experiences From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Front Neurol. 2020;11:671. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nordio S, Innocenti T, Agostini M, Meneghello F, Battel I. The efficacy of telerehabilitation in dysphagic patients: a systematic review. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital [Internet]. 2018;38:79–85. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29967554 doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1816 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18:2119–26. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Dasso NA. How is exercise different from physical activity? A concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2019;54:45–52. doi: 10.1111/nuf.12296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The 2011 Oxford Levels of Evidence [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 11]. www.cebm.net/?o=1025
  • 36.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC, et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2022. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fancott C, Velji K, Aimone E, Sinclair L. Exploration of Patient Safety Phenomena in Rehabilitation and Complex Continuing Care. Healthc Q. 2006;9:135–40. doi: 10.12927/hcq..18472 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cristian A, Green J. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement in Rehabilitation Medicine. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2012;23:221–30. doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2012.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Fatih Özden

7 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-27366Considerations for ensuring safety during telerehabilitation of people with stroke. A protocol for a scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gutierrez-Arias,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fatih Özden, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No funding was received for the development of this scoping review protocol."

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********​

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

thank you for the possibility to review your scoping review protocol.

I have some suggestions:

Line: 68: Why only a small or moderate impact on quality of life?

Some sentences are confusing in the wording, e.g. line 70-72. I think also strategies for telerehabilitation had to be adapted? Or does it mean a the implementation of a new concept like telerehabilitation is a positive effect of the pandemic? Then I would describe it in a more positive manner.

Why do you not refer to other diseases with positive impacts due to telerehabilitation to support your research interests? (e.g. Piotrowicz E. et al. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5006.

Also I miss, the different kinds of telerehabilitatio, e.g. telerehabilitation in mobility, or speech training

Please write out the abbreviation PCC (line 112)

Line 130: Will they distinguish between the different evidence levels of the included studies?

Line 140: Please describe necassary qualification of reviewers

Line 142: Please describe the benefit of using the Rayyan® app

Line 158: Do not repeat the sentence exactly of line 144-45. Maybe you can write this as overall method in case of disagreements.

Is it planned to contact study investigator in case of missing or confirming information

Which tiime frame of the analysis will be covered?

Please include a bias or evidence grade information of the study in table 2 depending on the kind of study and also of number of included patients in the study.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well designed. The authors stated that "The search was not limited by publication date, publication status, or the language of the". Future tense should be preferred for the whole manuscript. Also, authors should give more details on Rayyan software. King Regards

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. rer. medic. Sandra Prescher

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 6;18(1):e0276354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276354.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Dec 2022

Response to Reviewers

Comment

Line: 68: Why only a small or moderate impact on quality of life?

Response

The effect is small to moderate due to the values of the 95% CI limits of the standardized mean difference estimated by the study of Ali et al. Specific numerical results were added in lines 69 and 70 of the revised manuscript.

Comment

Some sentences are confusing in the wording, e.g. line 70-72. I think also strategies for telerehabilitation had to be adapted? Or does it mean a the implementation of a new concept like telerehabilitation is a positive effect of the pandemic? Then I would describe it in a more positive manner.

Response

The idea was rephrased to give it a more "positive" look.

In lines 73 to 74 the following sentence was added: “…however, strategies such as telerehabilitation were implemented, which contributed to continued service delivery.”

Comment

Why do you not refer to other diseases with positive impacts due to telerehabilitation to support your research interests? (e.g. Piotrowicz E. et al. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5006.

Response

The reference suggested by the reviewer and others have been added.

Comment

Also I miss, the different kinds of telerehabilitatio, e.g. telerehabilitation in mobility, or speech training

Response

Four functions were added where telerehabilitation could have an impact on people with stroke.

The following sentence was added to lines 81 to 82: “Telerehabilitation in stroke patients can be used to deliver interventions aimed at improving cognitive [26], physical [22,27], speech [28] and swallowing function [29].”

Comment

Please write out the abbreviation PCC (line 112)

Response

Abbreviation added on line 117 of the revised manuscript.

Comment

Line 130: Will they distinguish between the different evidence levels of the included studies?

Response

The level of evidence is reported according to the Oxford scale. This information was added to table 2.

Comment

Line 140: Please describe necassary qualification of reviewers

Response

The following idea was added to the revised manuscript: “Reviewers involved in study selection and data extraction should have clinical experience in the care of stroke patients through tele-rehabilitation, as well as training in conducting evidence synthesis studies. A novice reviewer will always be paired with a senior reviewer.”

Comment

Line 142: Please describe the benefit of using the Rayyan® app

Response

The following idea was added to the revised manuscript: “This tool improves the efficiency of the study selection process both in the title-abstract and full-text screening phase, eliminates duplicate records, facilitates the construction of the study selection diagram and helps to resolve disagreements.”

Comment

Line 158: Do not repeat the sentence exactly of line 144-45. Maybe you can write this as overall method in case of disagreements.

Response

Both sentences were deleted, and one was added. The following idea was added to the revised manuscript: “For both the selection and extraction phases, disagreements will be resolved by consensus. If this is not achieved a third reviewer will make the final decision.”

Comment

Is it planned to contact study investigator in case of missing or confirming information

Response

No information will be required from the authors of the studies in the cases indicated, as this review also seeks to determine the quality of the reporting of the studies. The following idea was added to the revised manuscript: “In case the information presented by the studies is unclear or missing, the authors of the studies will not be contacted, as this scoping review also aims to assess the completeness of the reporting of the studies.”

Comment

Which tiime frame of the analysis will be covered?

Response

In the "Study design" sub-section of the eligibility criteria, it is reported that studies will not be restricted for inclusion based on date of publication.

Comment

Please include a bias or evidence grade information of the study in table 2 depending on the kind of study and also of number of included patients in the study.

Response

The risk of bias and certainty of evidence is assessed when we want to determine how much we can believe the results of studies. In addition, the certainty of evidence is determined for each outcome reported by the study, and not for single studies.

Taking into account the above two points, associated with the fact that scoping reviews do not seek to determine the effectiveness of interventions (that is the task of systematic reviews and meta-analyses) and that the objective of our review is to determine the measures implemented to prevent adverse events during tele-rehabilitation of people with stroke, the assessment of risk of bias and certainty of evidence does not apply to our study.

Comment

The authors stated that "The search was not limited by publication date, publication status, or the language of the". Future tense should be preferred for the whole manuscript.

Response

The sentence was changed to the future tense.

Comment

Also, authors should give more details on Rayyan software

Response

The following idea was added to the revised manuscript: “This tool improves the efficiency of the study selection process both in the title-abstract and full-text screening phase, eliminates duplicate records, facilitates the construction of the study selection diagram and helps to resolve disagreements.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Fatih Özden

26 Dec 2022

Considerations for ensuring safety during telerehabilitation of people with stroke. A protocol for a scoping review

PONE-D-22-27366R1

Dear Dr. Gutierrez-Arias,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fatih Özden, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration. Please please delete the " Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)" in line 181. I am not sure if using a direct translation by deepl has to be referenced.

Reviewer #2: I hare reviewed the responses and revisions of the authors. The authors was correctly conducted my minor suggestions

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sandra Prescher

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Fatih Özden

28 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-27366R1

Considerations for ensuring safety during telerehabilitation of people with stroke. A protocol for a scoping review

Dear Dr. Gutierrez-Arias:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fatih Özden

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES