Home > DARE Reviews > Evidence of benefit from...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

Evidence of benefit from telerehabilitation in routine care: a systematic review

Review published: 2011.

Bibliographic details: Hailey D, Roine R, Ohinmaa A, Dennett L.  Evidence of benefit from telerehabilitation in routine care: a systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2011; 17(6): 281-287. [PubMed: 21844172]

Abstract

We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation (TR) applications. The review included reports on rehabilitation for any disability, other than mental health conditions, and drug or alcohol addiction. All forms of telecommunications technology for TR and all types of study design were considered. Study quality was assessed using an approach that considered both study performance and study design. Judgements were made on whether each TR application had been successful, whether reported outcomes were clinically significant, and whether further data were needed to establish the application as suitable for routine use. Sixty-one scientifically credible studies that reported patient outcomes or administrative changes were identified through computerized literature searches on five databases. Twelve clinical categories were covered by the studies. Those dealing with cardiac or neurological rehabilitation were the most numerous. Thirty-one of the studies (51%) were of high or good quality. Study results showed that 71% of the TR applications were successful, 18% were unsuccessful and for 11% the status was unclear. The reported outcomes for 51% of the applications appeared to be clinically significant. Poorer-quality studies tended to have worse outcomes than those from high- or good-quality studies. We judged that further study was required for 62% of the TR applications and desirable for 23%. TR shows promise in many fields, but compelling evidence of benefit and of impact on routine rehabilitation programmes is still limited. There is a need for more detailed, better-quality studies and for studies on the use of TR in routine care.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...