Telemedicine for Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain Lacks High-Quality Evidence on Delivery Modes and Effectiveness: An Umbrella Review

Abstract

Background:

Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Telemedicine is of growing importance, yet impacts on treatment efficacy remain unclear.

Objective:

This umbrella review (CRD42022298047) examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on pain intensity, disability, psychological function, quality of life, self-efficacy, and adverse events in MSK pain.

Methods:

PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to August 9, 2022, for systematic reviews with meta-analysis, including telemedicine-delivered exercise, education, and psychological interventions, in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). AMSTAR-2 was implemented. Standardized mean differences (SMDs; negative favors telemedicine) were extracted as effect estimates.

Results:

Of 1,135 records, 20 reviews (RCTs: n = 97, participants: n = 15,872) were included. Pain intensity SMDs were −0.66 to 0.10 for mixed pain (estimates: n = 16), −0.64 to −0.01 for low-back pain (n = 9), −0.31 to −0.15 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), −0.29 for knee pain (n = 1), −0.66 to −0.58 for fibromyalgia (n = 2), −0.16 for back pain (n = 1), and −0.09 for rheumatic disorders (n = 1). Disability SMDs were −0.50 to 0.10 for mixed pain (n = 14), −0.39 to 0.00 for low-back pain (n = 8), −0.41 to −0.04 for osteoarthritis (n = 7), −0.22 for knee pain (n = 1), and −0.56 for fibromyalgia (n = 1). Methodological quality was “critically low” for 17 reviews. Effectiveness tended to favor telemedicine for all secondary outcomes.

Conclusions:

Primary RCTs are required that compare telemedicine interventions with in-person delivery of the intervention (noninferiority trials), consider safety, assess videoconferencing, and combine different treatment approaches.

Introduction

Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is the most common reason for disability worldwide and affects 1.7 billion people.¹ Subsequently, MSK pain incurs a financial burden of 1,387,200 USD (0.417% of the GDP) in the United States.² Therefore, identifying treatments capable of reducing the global burden of MSK pain is critical.

Treatment approaches for MSK pain are most commonly provided through in-person delivery (e.g., by physical therapist, physiotherapist or exercise physiologist). However, circumstances, such as insufficient infrastructure in rural and remote regions, the recent COVID-19 pandemic, consumer preference or convenience, or other challenges to consumer access, have stressed the need for alternatives to in-person rehabilitation.^3,4 A burgeoning option is telemedicine,^5,6 which offers several benefits to patients, such as reduced travel,⁷ increased self-management,⁸ and time flexibility,^9,10 and is commonly accepted by patients with MSK pain.¹¹ The term telemedicine describes different kinds of diagnostics and interventions, which are delivered digitally either synchronously or asyncronously.⁴ Telemedicine can be defined as “the use of advanced telecommunication technologies to exchange health information and provide health care services across geographic, time, social, and cultural barriers.”¹² However, there is still much uncertainty regarding several aspects of telemedicine.

Recent umbrella reviews concluded that telemedicine treatments can reduce disability in patients with MSK pain.^13
–15 However, prior reviews only considered patients with MSK pain collectively, rather than by diagnostic subgroups, which overlooks that specific MSK pain conditions may manifest through differing mechanisms.¹⁶ Specific MSK pain conditions may also respond differently to the same treatment and thus impact recovery trajectories.¹⁷ Furthermore, prior umbrella reviews focused on single interventions, rather than the range of treatments commonly employed for MSK pain. Finally, previous reviews tend to omit key clinical outcomes, such as pain intensity, psychological functioning,¹⁸ health-related quality of life (HrQoL), self-efficacy, and adverse events, which preclude a broader understanding of treatment efficacy.

This umbrella review primarily aimed to examine the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on pain intensity and disability among diagnostic subgroups of patients with MSK pain. Secondary aims examined the effectiveness of telemedicine interventions on psychological functioning, health related quality of life (HrQoL), and self-efficacy, as well as safety (adverse events). In addition, another goal was to identify evidence gaps in primary studies.

Methods

Protocol and registration

We prospectively registered this umbrella review using PROSPERO (CRD42022298047) and followed PRISMA2020¹⁹ and PRIOR²⁰ guidelines in the conduct and reporting of this review. Deviations from the protocol are displayed in Supplementary Data S1, S12–S14.

Ethical Approval

No ethical approval was needed because we used data from previously published studies in which informed consent was obtained by the respective primary investigators.

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria were based on the participant, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) framework.²¹ Telemedicine definitions relevant to eligibility criteria are provided in Supplementary Data S2.

Population

Adults (≥18 years of age) of any sex with MSK pain considered subacute (6–12 weeks²²) or chronic (>12 weeks²²). MSK pain was defined as pain referring to the MSK system (e.g., muscles, tendons, ligaments, cartilage) of a specific or nonspecific origin. Reviews including secondary pain without MSK origin (e.g., asthma, Morbus Crohn's or heart diseases) and specific to post-surgical/post-traumatic pain were excluded.

Intervention

Any synchronous or asynchronous telemedicine intervention delivered using a digital pathway (e.g., website, mail, app, messaging, telephone) in isolation or conjunction with other treatments. Education, exercise/physical training, and psychological therapies were considered eligible as treatments. Reviews that focused solely on interventions that need specific equipment, additional to that used for telemedicine such as virtual reality devices or requiring participation from a specific geographical location, were excluded.

Comparator

Usual care, any in-person intervention, waiting list, and no intervention. Studies in which comparator interventions were linked to telemedicine were excluded.

Outcomes

Reviews had to evaluate pain intensity or disability. Secondary outcomes were HrQoL, psychological functioning, self-efficacy, and adverse events, yet the absence of these outcomes did not preclude inclusion.

Study type

Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in English and German language, including randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs), were eligible for inclusion.

Information sources and search strategy

The following databases were searched: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), EMBASE, and CINAHL. The full search strategy is available in Supplementary Data S3. We also manually searched the reference lists of included reviews and conducted forward citation tracking using Google Scholar. Covidence (covidence.org) was used to remove duplicate entries.

Study selection

Title/abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two independent reviewers (S.K. and C.L.S.) using Covidence. Conflicts were resolved by a third independent reviewer (N.L.M.). Title/abstract and full-text screening were piloted (S.K. and C.L.S.) on 60 and 10 articles, respectively. Potential discrepancies were discussed among the entire authorship team. For quality control, an independent reviewer (R.D.) randomly cross-checked title/abstract (articles: n = 66) and full-text screening (n = 6).

Data extraction: Included systematic reviews

Data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers (S.K. and M.T.) using a custom-designed Google spreadsheet. Extraction was piloted with two reviews and compared using a custom-written code in the R statistical environment (version 4.02). Conflicts were resolved by a third independent reviewer (N.L.M.).

We extracted the following parameters: Author name, year of publication, number of trials included in the review/meta-analysis, number of participants, diagnostic subgroup, pain stage (subacute/chronic), mean age, percentage of females, details on intervention and control group, assessed outcomes with the corresponding effect size and confidence interval, adherence rate, and adverse events. Missing outcomes were classified as not reported. If details of outcome measures were missing, the corresponding author of the review was contacted three times in a timeframe of 8 weeks. If no answer was obtained, the study was not integrated in the quantitative summary. For quality control, an independent reviewer (R.D.) cross-checked extraction of two articles selected at random.

Data extraction: primary studies

In addition to the extraction of study details at the review level, the following data were extracted at the primary study level: Details of intervention and control group, delivery pathway, mode of delivery, and number of randomized participants. In case of missing data and/or discrepant data between included reviews, the data were extracted directly from the primary studies.

Assessment of methodological quality: Included systematic reviews

The methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool.²³ To account for the specifications of this umbrella review and that methodological advances have occurred since AMSTAR 2 was developed, we implemented the tool as described in Supplementary Data S4. Assessment of methodological quality was piloted on two studies, conducted by two independent reviewers (S.K. and M.T.), and discrepancies were adjudicated by a third independent reviewer (N.L.M.).

Data synthesis

We conducted a narrative synthesis by grouping meta-analyses from the included reviews per outcome and diagnostic subgroup, and presented the standardized mean differences (SMD = difference in mean outcome between groups/standard deviation of outcome among participants²⁴ [negative values favor telemedicine]), 95% confidence intervals (CI), sample size, number of studies, intervention and comparator details, and certainty of evidence (GRADE) together in forest plots without pooling the data. Where different measures of spread were reported, the SMD and CI with Hartung–Knapp correction²⁵ were calculated manually in the R statistical environment using the package “meta”.²⁶ Subgroup analyses conducted in the included reviews were presented in additional forest plots. Clinical meaningfulness was defined as an SMD of at least 0.5.²⁷

The amount of overlap of included primary studies was quantified by calculating the corrected covered area²⁸ (CCA) for each primary outcome and presented in tabulated form to estimate the independency of each effect estimate. If reviews included subgroup meta-analyses that did not meet our eligibility criteria, the primary studies from those meta-analyses were not included in the calculation of the CCA.

To identify evidence gaps on the primary study level, intervention content details and delivery pathways were synthesized in a heat map, where darker colors represent a larger sample size.

Results

The search strategy yielded 1,135 records (Fig. 1). Full-text screening involved 73 records and 19 reviews were ultimately included. Manual search identified one additional included review²⁹ for a total of 20 included reviews. Studies excluded at full-text screening are detailed in Supplementary Data S5.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA search flow diagram.

Data handling

An overview of data handling is shown in Supplementary Data S6.

Study characteristics

Included reviews (N = 20; Table 1) were published between 2014 and 2022 and investigated the effectiveness of telemedicine on mixed MSK pain populations (N = 5),^30

–34 low-back pain (N = 5),^29,35

–38 knee pain (N = 1),³⁹ osteoarthritis (N = 4),^40

–43 fibromyalgia (N = 1),⁴⁴ and mixed chronic conditions, including subgroup analyses for MSK pain (N = 4).^45

–48 Twelve reviews included RCTs investigating participants with chronic pain^{15,29,30,37

–40,43,44,46
–48} and eight investigated mixed pain stages.^{31
–33,35,36,41,42,45} Interventions examined were as follows: exercise (N = 3),^30,39,45 psychological (N = 4),^34,44,46,47 exercise/education (N = 2),^35,41 education/psychological (N = 3),^36
–38 and exercise/education/psychological (N = 8).^{29,31
–33,40,42,43,48}

Table 1.

Details of Included Reviews

AUTHOR, YEAR	END DATE OF SEARCH (MM/YYYY)	N RCTS INCLUDED IN SR AND MA	N PARTICIPANTS INCLUDED IN SR (% FEMALES)	DIAGNOSTIC SUBGROUP/PAIN STAGE	MEAN AGE	INTERVENTION (CONTENT)	INTERVENTION DELIVERY PATHWAY	INTERVENTION DELIVERY MODE	COMPARATOR	OUTCOMES	FOLLOW-UP MIN-MAX (IN WEEKS)
Adamse et al., 2018³⁰	2015	SR: 16 MA: 14	3575 (78.7)	MSK (several)/Chronic Rheumatoid arthritis, low-back pain, widespread pain, osteoarthritis, knee pain, fibromyalgia	53 years	Exercise General encouragement of physical activity, individually tailored exercise programs	Web based Telephone	NR	Usual care, general information, physical training advice	Pain intensity Disability HrQoL	13.04–130
Bernardy et al., 2019⁴⁴	01/2018	SR: 6 MA: 6	493 (NR)	Fibromyalgia/Chronic	NR	Psychological Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)	Web based Telephone	Synchronous + Asynchronous	Attention control, standard care, waiting list, face-to-face	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy Psychological Functioning HrQoL	4–52
Chen et al., 2021³⁵	10/2020	SR: 9 MA: 9	792 (NR)	Low-back pain/Combination	NR	Exercise + Education Not further specified	mHealth Web based Telephone Technology based	NR	Usual care	Pain intensity Disability	4–52
Chen et al., 2021³⁹	2020	SR: 12 MA: 12	1430 (NR)	Knee pain/Chronic Knee osteoarthritis and chronic knee pain	61.3 years	Exercise Not further specified	mHealth Web based Telephone	NR	Face-to-face physical therapy, education, minimal or no care	Pain intensity Disability HrQoL	NR
Cottrell et al., 2017³¹	11/2015	SR: 14 MA: 14	1520 (NR)	MSK (several)/Combination Arthritis, spinal pain, knee pain, hip pain, shoulder pain	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Self-management, physiotherapy protocol, behavioral therapy	Telephone Videoconferencing	Synchronous	Usual care, face-to-face physiotherapy, home exercises	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy HrQoL	NR
Cuenca-Martínez et al., 2022³⁴	08/2021	SR: 58 MA: 41	8199 (70.3)	MSK (several)/Chronic Back pain, low-back pain, unspecific pain, fibromyalgia, headache, rheumatic disorders, others  only results from back pain, low-back pain, fibromyalgia and rheumatic disorders included	NR	Psychological CBT, acceptance and commitment therapy, self-management, mindfulness therapy, other	mHealth Web based Telephone	NR	Waiting list, usual care, in-person	Pain intensity Self-efficacy	6–52
Dario et al., 2017³⁶	08/2015	SR: 8	2280 (NR) MA: 4	Low-back pain/Combination	NR	Education + Psychological Educational component to enhance the knowledge on LBP and an active lifestyle, Behavioral change approaches such as CBT and health coaching principles	Web based Telephone	NR	Usual care, minimal interventions, LBP information	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy HrQoL	9–52
de Oliveira Lima et al., 2021³²	02/2020	SR: 6 MA: 5	1664 (NR)	MSK (several)/Combination Chronic LBP, different chronic MSK conditions, fibromyalgia	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Cognitive and behavioral strategies, information about pain, stress management, sleep hygiene, management of thoughts and humor, relaxation training, setting goals, nutrition, exercise	Web based	Asynchronous	Waiting list, usual care, alternative care, multimodal pain rehabilitation	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy Psychological functioning	3–52
Dias et al., 2021⁴⁵	02/2020	SR: 60 MA: 50	5818 (NR)	MSK (several)/Combination Physical Disabilities: MSK, post-operative, oncology, rheumatologic, cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurologic, multiple conditions, endocrine, urologic  only results from MSK subgroup included	NR	Exercise Home-based, strength and stretching exercises, aerobic exercise, with and without additional face-to-face appointments	mHealth Web based Telephone	NR	No intervention, waiting list, placebo, other interventions	Pain intensity Disability HrQoL	NR
Du et al., 2020³⁷	04/2019	SR: 8 MA: 5	1238 (NR)	Low-back pain/Chronic	NR	Education + Psychological Self-management, CBT	mHealth Web based Telephone	NR	Usual care, active control	Pain intensity Disability	8.7–104
Du et al., 2017³⁸	06/2015	SR: 13 MA: 13	2188 (NR)	Low-back pain/Chronic	NR	Education + Psychological Self-management, general education, CBT	mHealth Web based Telephone	NR	Usual care, waiting list	Pain intensity Disability	8–104.4
Eccleston et al., 2014⁴⁶	11/2013	SR: 15 MA: 15	2435 (80)	MSK (several)/Chronic Headache and nonheadache (chronic back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, mixed pain)  only results from nonheadache subgroup included	47	Psychological CBT, acceptance commitment-based therapy	Web based Telephone Technology based	NR	Waiting list, treatment-as-usual, active control	Pain intensity Disability Psychological functioning HrQoL	NR
Lara-Palomo et al. 2022²⁹	01/2022	SR: 9 MA: 8	3180 (NR)	Low-back pain/Chronic	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Mixture of mostly exercise related interventions, but with education, relaxation and self-management components	mHealth	NR	Usual care, face-to-face, minimal intervention, exercises	Pain intensity Disability	2–52
Mehta et al., 2019⁴⁷	09/2018	SR: 25 MA: 13	3450 (NR)	MSK (several)/Chronic Pain, tinnitus, fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, spinal cord injury, heterogeneous chronic disease population  only results from fibromyalgia subgroup included	NR	Psychological CBT	Web based Telephone	Synchronous + Asynchronous	Waiting list, face-to-face group, online discussion forum, treatment as usual, information only, attention control, positive psychology intervention, acceptance and commitment therapy	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy Psychological functioning	NR
Moman et al., 2019⁴⁸	01/2018	SR: 20 MA: 17	2496 (NR)	MSK (several)/Chronic Differing chronic pain diagnoses, chronic low-back pain, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Not further specified	mHealth Web based	Asynchronous	Face-to-face, passive control	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy Psychological functioning	4–52
O'Brien et al., 2018³³	05/2018	SR: 23 MA: 15	4994 (NR)	MSK (several)/Combination Osteoarthritis, spinal pain	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Education about several health-related topics, CBT, self-management, home exercise programs, general physical activity	Telephone	Synchronous	Face-to-face and usual care	Pain intensity Disability Self-efficacy Psychological functioning	4.35–104.4
Safari et al., 2020⁴⁰	05/2018	SR: 8 MA: 8	2256 (74.7)	Osteoarthritis/Chronic	63	Exercise + Education + Psychological Self-Management: Education, Goal setting, Action planning, Exercise, Diet or weight management, Pain management, Medication, Motivation, Peer support, Patient-therapist communication, Stress management, relaxation and/or sleep; Behavioral change	mHealth Web based Telephone	Synchronous + Asynchronous	Treatment as usual, wait list, in-person physical therapy, attention group, no intervention	Pain intensity Disability	9–52
Schäfer et al., 2018⁴¹	07/2017	SR: 7 MA: 7	742 (64)	Osteoarthritis/Combination	NR	Exercise + Education Exercise: strengthening, walking, PA reinforcement. Education: exercise-education, healthy diet, pain management, self-management	mHealth Web based Telephone Videoconferencing	Synchronous + Asynchronous	Waiting list, educational material, face-to-face, hyaluronic injections	Pain intensity Disability HrQoL	4.35–78
Xie et al., 2021⁴²	04/2020	SR: 6 MA: 4	791 (NR)	Osteoarthritis/Combination	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Mixed interventions: exercise, self-management, psychological, CBT, education	Web based	NR	Face-to-face, usual care, wait list	Pain intensity Disability	NR
Yang et al., 2023⁴³	06/2021	SR: 9 MA: 9	861 (NR)	Osteoarthritis/Chronic	NR	Exercise + Education + Psychological Exercise with CBT and Educational components	mHealth Web based Telephone	NR	Face-to-face, usual care, booklet	Pain intensity Disability HrQoL	4–78

SR, systematic review; MA, meta-analysis; NR, not reported; HrQoL, health-related quality of life.

One review included usual care as comparator group,³⁵ while the remaining included different kinds of comparator groups in combination. The majority (N = 19) examined pain intensity and disability, yet one only included outcomes of pain intensity.³⁴ Seven reviews examined self-efficacy,^{31

–34,44,47,48} six examined psychological functioning,^{32,33,44,46
–48} eight examined HrQoL,^{30,31,39,41,43

–46} and five examined adverse events.^{32,33,38,44,46} Follow-up time points ranged from 2 weeks to 30 months.

Reviews included 97 primary RCTs (N = 15,872) for the primary outcomes pain and disability. While eligible, no non-RCT was included in any included review. For pain intensity, 160 publications (including double counting) were included in meta-analyses, which represented 84 unique RCTs (CCA: 8.43, moderate overlap).²⁸ For disability, 113 publications (including double counting) were included in meta-analyses, representing 71 unique RCTs (CCA: 6.64, merely moderate overlap). A citation matrix is available in Supplementary Data S7.

An overview of interventions by delivery pathway and sample size of the primary studies is provided in a heat map (Fig. 2). Heat maps for each diagnostic subgroup are available in Supplementary Data S8 and a tabulated summary is included in Supplementary Data S9.

Fig. 2.

Heat map of intervention content (y-axis) and delivery pathway (x-axis) of primary RCTs included in the systematic reviews; colors indicating N participants per combination of intervention content and delivery pathway. RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Methodological quality

The methodological quality was rated “critically low” in 16 reviews,^{29

–32,35

–43,46
–48} “low” in three reviews,^33,34,45 and “moderate” in one review.⁴⁴ The detailed ratings for each component of AMSTAR 2 are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

AMSTAR 2 Results

	ADAMSE 2018	BERNARDY 2019	CHEN 2021	CHEN 2021	COTTRELL 2017	CUENCA-MARTÍNEZ 2022	DARIO 2017	DE OLIVEIRA LIMA 2021	DIAS 2021	DU 2020	DU 2017	ECCLESTON 2014	LARA-PALOMO 2022	MEHTA 2019	MOMAN 2019	O'BRIEN 2018	SAFARI 2020	SCHÄFER 2018	XIE 2021	YANG 2023
Questions and inclusion	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Protocol	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Partial Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Study design	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
Comprehensive search	Partial Yes	Yes	No	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
Study selection	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Data extraction	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Excluded studies justification	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No
Included study details	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Partial Yes
Risk of bias	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Funding sources	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No
Statistical methods	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
RoB on meta analysis	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
RoB in individual studies	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Explanation for heterogeneity	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Publication bias	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Conflict of interest	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Overall rating	Critically low	Moderate	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low	Low	Critically low	Critically low	Low	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low	Low	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low	Critically low

Primary outcomes

Mixed MSK pain conditions

Eight reviews, 16 effect estimates for pain intensity, and 15 effect estimates for disability were identified for mixed MSK pain conditions ( Figs. 3, 4 and Supplementary Data S10 and S11). One review provided no effect estimate.⁴⁷ For exercise interventions,^30,45 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.22 to 0.10 (−0.45 to 0.40; 4 estimates; GRADE: low to high) for pain intensity and −0.20 to 0.10 (−0.66 to 0.65; 5 estimates; GRADE: low to high) for disability. For psychological interventions,⁴⁶ SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.48 to −0.37 (−1.18 to 0.22; 2 estimates; GRADE: not reported) for pain intensity and −0.50 to −0.15 (−0.80 to -0.01; 2 estimates; GRADE: not reported) for disability. For exercise/education/psychological interventions,^31
–33,48 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.66 to −0.07 (−1.60 to 0.62; 10 estimates; GRADE: very low to moderate) for pain intensity and −0.45 to −0.06 (−0.70 to 0.31; 7 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate) for disability.

Fig. 3.

Forest plot for the outcome pain intensity of main analyses. A negative value represents an effect in favor of telemedicine. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from meta-analyses are represented by a diamond. Bold lines of equivalence represent borders of clinical meaningfulness (−0.5; 0.5 SMD). NI, no intervention; MI, minimal intervention; WL, waiting list; UC, usual care; IP, in-person; SMD, Standardized mean difference.

Fig. 4.

Forest plot for the outcome disability of main analyses. A negative value represents an effect in favor of telemedicine. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from meta-analyses are represented by a diamond. Bold lines of equivalence represent borders of clinical meaningfulness (−0.5; 0.5 SMD).

Low-back pain

Six reviews, nine effect estimates for pain intensity, and eight effect estimates for disability were identified for low-back pain ( Figs. 3, 4 and Supplementary Data S10 and S11). For exercise/education interventions,³⁵ SMD (95% CI) was −0.36 (−0.56 to −0.16; 1 estimate; GRADE: not reported) for pain intensity and −0.31 (−0.46 to −0.16; 1 estimate; GRADE: not reported) for disability. For psychological interventions,³⁴ SMD (95% CI) was −0.12 (−0.28 to 0.04; 1 estimate; GRADE: low) for pain intensity. For education/psychological interventions,^36
–38 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.27 to −0.01 (−0.43, 0.16; 5 estimates; GRADE: moderate) for pain intensity and −0.34 to 0.00 (−0.52 to 0.18; 5 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate) for disability.

For exercise/education/psychological interventions,²⁹ SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.64 to −0.18 (−1.73 to 0.44; 2 estimates; GRADE: not reported) for pain intensity and −0.39 to −0.20 (−0.87 to 0.41; 2 estimates; GRADE: not reported) for disability.

Osteoarthritis

Four reviews and 7 effect estimates for both pain intensity and disability were identified for osteoarthritis ( Figs. 3, 4 and Supplementary Data S10 and S11). For exercise/education interventions,⁴¹ SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.31 to −0.30 (−0.58 to −0.04; 2 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate) for pain intensity and −0.41 to −0.30 (−0.76 to 0.16; 2 estimates; GRADE: low to high) for disability. For exercise/education/psychological interventions,^40,42,43 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.28 to −0.15 (-0.48 to −0.01; 5 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate) for pain intensity and −0.26 to −0.04 (-0.42 to 0.12; 5 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate) for disability.

Knee Pain

One review and one effect estimate for both pain intensity and disability were identified for knee pain ( Figs. 3, 4 and Supplementary Data S10 and S11). For exercise interventions,³⁹ SMD (95% CI) was −0.29 (−0.48 to −0.10; 1 estimate; GRADE: moderate) for pain intensity and −0.22 (−0.43 to −0.00; 1 estimate; GRADE: moderate) for disability.

Fibromyalgia

Two reviews, 2 effect estimates for pain intensity, and one effect estimate for disability were identified for fibromyalgia ( Figs. 3, 4 and Supplementary Data S10 and S11). For psychological interventions,^34,44 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.66 to −0.58 (−1.11 to −0.04; 2 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate) for pain intensity and was −0.56 (−1.00, −0.13; 1 estimate; GRADE: moderate) for disability.

Back pain

One review and one effect estimate for pain intensity were identified for back pain (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,³⁴ SMD was −0.16 (−0.50, 0.18; 1 estimate; GRADE: low).

Rheumatic disorders

One review and one effect estimate for pain intensity were identified for rheumatic disorders (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,³⁴ SMD was −0.09 (−0.25, 0.07; 1 estimate; GRADE: low).

Secondary outcomes

Mixed MSK pain conditions

Three reviews and 3 effect estimates for HrQoL were identified for mixed MSK pain conditions (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Data S11). SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.03 to 0.30 (−0.50 to 1.10; 2 estimates; GRADE: high) for exercise interventions,^30,45 and was −0.27 (−0.54 to 0.00; 1 estimate; GRADE: not reported) for psychological interventions.⁴⁶

Fig. 5.

Forest plot for the outcome health-related quality of life of all analyses. A negative value represents an effect in favor of telemedicine. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from meta-analyses are represented by a diamond. Bold lines of equivalence represent borders of clinical meaningfulness (−0.5; 0.5 SMD).

Four reviews and 15 effect estimates for psychological functioning were identified for mixed MSK pain conditions (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,⁴⁶ SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.53 to −0.19 (−1.84 to 0.78; 4 estimates; GRADE: not reported). For exercise/education/psychological interventions,^32,33,48 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.45 to 0.11 (-3.02 to 2.56; 11 estimates; GRADE: very low to moderate).

Fig. 6.

Forest plot for the outcome psychological functioning of all analyses. A negative value represents an effect in favor of telemedicine. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from meta-analyses are represented by a diamond. Bold lines of equivalence represent borders of clinical meaningfulness (−0.5; 0.5 SMD).

Three reviews and four effect estimates for self-efficacy were identified for mixed MSK pain conditions (Fig. 7 and Supplementary Data S11). For exercise/education/psychological interventions,^32,33,48 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.46 to −0.19 (−0.78 to −0.02; 4 estimates; GRADE: very low to high).

Fig. 7.

Forest plot for the outcome self-efficacy of all analyses. A negative value represents an effect in favor of telemedicine. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals from meta-analyses are represented by a diamond. Bold lines of equivalence represent borders of clinical meaningfulness (−0.5; 0.5 SMD).

Three reviews^32,46,48 reported on adverse events. One review on exercise/education/psychological interventions³² stated the primary studies did not report the outcome, while adverse events were synthesized only narratively in one review on exercise/education/psychological interventions³³ where either no intervention-related adverse event occurred or adverse events were balanced between intervention and control group. The remaining review on psychological interventions⁴⁶ reported on the adverse events in one primary study (11.9%) and stated that the other primary studies did not report on adverse events.

Low-back pain

One review and one effect estimate for self-efficacy were identified for low-back pain (Fig. 7 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,³⁴ SMD (95% CI) was −0.52 (−1.58, 0.54; 1 estimate; GRADE: low).

One review on education/psychological interventions³⁶ in LBP patients stated that zero adverse events were reported in the primary studies.

Osteoarthritis

Two reviews and 6 effect estimates for HrQoL were identified for osteoarthritis (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Data S11). SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.27 to −0.13 (-0.61 to 0.35; 5 estimates; GRADE: moderate to high) for exercise/education interventions⁴¹ and was 0.00 (−0.26 to 0.26; 1 estimate; GRADE: not reported) for exercise/education/psychological interventions.⁴³

Knee pain

One review and two effect estimates for HrQoL were identified for knee pain (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Data S11). For exercise, SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.18 to −0.25 (−0.46 to 0.05; 2 estimates; GRADE: high).³⁹

Fibromyalgia

One review and 2 effect estimates for HrQoL were identified for fibromyalgia (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,⁴⁴ SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.58 to −0.58 (−1.06 to −0.09; 2 estimates; GRADE: moderate).

One review and 3 effect estimates for psychological functioning were identified for fibromyalgia (Fig. 6 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,⁴⁴ SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.77 to −0.12 (−1.10 to 0.16; 3 estimates; GRADE: moderate).

Two reviews and three effect estimates for self-efficacy were identified for fibromyalgia (Fig. 7 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,^34,44 SMD (95% CI) ranged −0.65 to -0.24 (−1.02 to 0.06; 3 estimates; GRADE: low to moderate).

One review on psychological interventions⁴⁴ concluded that no adverse event was reported in the primary studies.

Back pain

One review and one effect estimate for self-efficacy were identified for back pain (Fig. 7). For psychological interventions,³⁴ SMD (95% CI) was −0.63 (−1.98 to 0.71; 1 estimate; GRADE: low).

Rheumatic disorders

One review and one effect estimate for self-efficacy were identified for rheumatic disorders (Fig. 7 and Supplementary Data S11). For psychological interventions,³⁴ SMD (95% CI) was −0.24 (−0.70 to 0.22; 1 estimate; GRADE: low).

Discussion

This umbrella review showed that reductions in pain intensity and disability across a range of MSK pain conditions tended to favor telemedicine interventions when compared to control. However, few estimates were greater than the threshold considered clinically meaningful (i.e., SMD: −0.5). In the limited studies that examined HrQoL, psychological functioning, and self-efficacy across a range of MSK pain conditions, improvements tended to favor telemedicine, yet the majority of estimates were not clinically meaningful. Notably, overall study quality was considered “critically low” in 16 studies and five robustly reported adverse events.

Psychological interventions tended to demonstrate clinical meaningful effects for pain compared to active and passive comparators in patients with fibromyalgia.^34,44 Our observations align with Cuenca-Martínez et al.,¹⁵ yet we also observed a clinically meaningful effect for exercise/education/psychological interventions in patients with general back pain compared to usual care.³⁴ Previous umbrella reviews found no difference between the effect of exercise/education/psychological interventions delivered through telemedicine and in-person/usual care for disability in patients with MSK pain.^13,14 This is supported by our findings, while our review adds similar results for pain intensity,³³ patients in the osteoarthritis subgroup³³ and for exercise alone.⁴⁵

A clinically meaningful effect to improve psychological functioning, HrQoL, and self-efficacy⁴⁴ was found for psychological interventions in patients with fibromyalgia compared to active and passive comparators. These findings are in line with those from Cuenca-Martínez et al.,¹⁵ except for HrQoL and self-efficacy, which is a new finding from our review. For several MSK pain conditions combined, exercise/education/psychological interventions delivered through telephone alone or in adjunction to in-person delivery are probably not less effective than in-person delivery and usual care to improve psychological functioning and HrQoL.³³

Furthermore, self-efficacy was slightly improved compared to usual care.³³ Those clinical outcomes have not been investigated by prior umbrella reviews. None of the prior umbrella reviews included analyses about other diagnostic subgroups that have been investigated in our review. Psychological interventions may have little to no effect on self-efficacy for patients with rheumatic disorders and general back pain compared to active and passive controls.¹⁵ All three interventions delivered through telephone showed similar effects compared to in-person delivery and usual care for HrQoL in patients with osteoarthritis.³³

Several evidence gaps were identified during the conduct of this umbrella review. On the review level, it is evident that only four reviews with relatively small sample sizes included self-efficacy in their analysis, despite self-efficacy being an important outcome in the context of telemedicine. Lower self-efficacy is associated with a reduced likelihood of clinical improvement in internet-based interventions.⁴⁹

On the RCT level, web based (39/97 [40.2%]), telephone (24/97 [24.7%]), and mHealth (15/97 [15.5%]) were most frequently investigated, while videoconferencing was only evaluated to a small amount (5/97 [5.2%]). This finding reflects an important evidence gap, since the use of videoconferencing in practice has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁰

Furthermore, it is apparent that education was only investigated in 10/97 (10.3%) RCTs and never in combination with mHealth. A combination of exercise, education, and psychological treatments was only used in 3/97 (3.1%) trials. Regarding the control group, the minority of trials used in-person interventions as comparator group (15/97 [15.5%]), while most trials compared to usual care (43/97 [44.3%]), no or minimal intervention (23/97 [23.7%]) or waiting list (16/97 [16.5%]).

Some limitations of this umbrella review must be considered. On the level of systematic reviews, it is important to note that many reviews included several different comparison groups and pooled them all together in meta-analyses. RCTs with true controls tend to have higher effect sizes than those with waiting list and placebo intervention.⁵¹ Furthermore, many reviews did not account for the risk of bias of primary studies in their meta-analyses and failed to conduct sensitivity analyses, which lead to an increased risk of nonrobust results. Overall, the quality of included reviews was poor in AMSTAR 2. Although it has to be kept in mind that floor effects of AMSTAR 2 can occur due to relatively strict items, the quality is most often decreased due to an insufficient preregistered protocol (9/20 [45%]) and inadequate statistical methods (8/20 [40%]), which are key factors for reliable evidence.

The methodology of this umbrella review also demonstrates some limitations. First, the lack of secondary outcomes reported in the reviews might be the consequence of including only reviews that investigated either pain or disability. Second, we did not re-extract all data from primary RCTs, but, unless any discrepancy between reviews was present, relied on the reporting of reviews. Last, we excluded systematic reviews without meta-analyses, which might lead to missing information, but increased the consistency of our summary of results.

The findings of this study have several implications. When excluding studies with critically low levels of evidence,^{29

–32,35

–43,46
–48} telemedicine-based interventions seem to be comparably effective to usual care or in-person delivery and could be sought as an alternative or adjunction to in-person care. Those implications are applicable across different types of interventions. However, regarding the implementation of telemedicine in practice, it has to be kept in mind that the safety of telemedicine-based interventions is not completely clear, given few studies reported adverse events in detail.

In particular, asynchronous telemedicine interventions have the potential to address waiting times commonly experienced by patients with MSK pain. Longer waiting times have a negative effect on clinical outcomes,^52,53 and show a negative association with patient satisfaction with therapy,⁵⁴ which likely contributes to the overall burden of MSK pain. Furthermore, since longer waiting times lead to higher health care utilization and higher costs for patients,⁵² health insurance providers should consider funding telemedicine-based interventions like standard in-person interventions.

Future research should examine self-efficacy and safety outcomes of telemedicine-based interventions. Furthermore, future RCTs should use evidence-based, in-person interventions compared to the same intervention delivered through telemedicine modalities to draw more accurate conclusions on the effectiveness of telemedicine. Researchers conducting meta-analyses should account for the large heterogeneity across RCTs by conducting appropriate subgroup analyses and having clear and meaningful inclusion criteria.

Conclusion

This body of evidence tends to slightly favor telemedicine compared to traditional treatment delivery approaches for pain intensity, disability, psychological functioning, HrQoL, and self-efficacy in patients with MSK pain across a range of diagnostic subgroups, yet effect sizes were mostly not clinically meaningful and focused on comparisons to no intervention. Furthermore, results should be interpreted with caution owing to the poor methodological quality of included reviews. Current evidence gaps include primary RCTs that compare telemedicine interventions with in-person delivery of similar intervention approaches (noninferiority trials), RCTs for videoconferencing, and investigations combining different treatment approaches. Further research is needed on safety and factors influencing adherence.

Authors' Contribution

S.K., D.L.B., P.J.O., and N.L.M.: Conceptualization: Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims; S.K., T.S., D.L.B., and P.J.O.: Methodology: Development or design of methodology and creation of models; D.L.B., T.S., and S.K.: Software: Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; and testing of existing code components; R.D.: Validation: Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs; S.K. and T.S.: Formal analysis: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data; S.K., M.T., and C.L.S.: Investigation: Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection; Not Applicable: Resources: Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools; S.K. and D.L.B.: Data Curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data, and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse; S.K.: Writing - original draft: Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation); All: Writing - review and editing: Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre-publication or post-publication stages; S.K.: Visualization: Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation; D.L.B., L.D., P.J.O., and N.L.M.: Supervision: Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team; S.K.: Project administration: Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution; Not Applicable: Funding acquisition: Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this article.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data S1

Supplementary Data S2

Supplementary Data S3

Supplementary Data S4

Supplementary Data S5

Supplementary Data S6

Supplementary Data S7

Supplementary Data S8

Supplementary Data S9

Supplementary Data S10

Supplementary Data S11

Supplementary Data S12

Supplementary Data S13

Supplementary Data S14

References

Cieza

, Causey

, Kamenov

, et al. Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet, 2020; 396(10267):2006–2017; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32340-0

Vargas

, Bilbeny

, Balmaceda

, et al. Costs and consequences of chronic pain due to musculoskeletal disorders from a health system perspective in Chile. Pain Rep, 2018; 3(5):e656; doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000656

Barton

, Ezzat

, Merolli

, et al. “It's second best”: A mixed-methods evaluation of the experiences and attitudes of people with musculoskeletal pain towards physiotherapist delivered telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Musculoskelet Sci Pract, 2022; 58:102500; doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102500

Waller

, Stotler

. Telemedicine: A Primer. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep, 2018; 18(10):54; doi: 10.1007/s11882-018-0808-4

Lewis

, Mc Auliffe

, O'Sullivan

, et al. Musculoskeletal physical therapy after COVID-19: Time for a New “Normal.”. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2021;51(1):5–7; doi: 10.2519/jospt.2021.0102

Fritz

, Davis

, Burgess

, et al. Pivoting to virtual delivery for managing chronic pain with nonpharmacological treatments: Implications for pragmatic research. Pain, 2021; 162(6):1591–1596; doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002139

Lord Ferguson

. Is the end of the pandemic the end of telerehabilitation?. Phys Ther, 2022; 102(4):pzac004; doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzac004

Fernandes

, Devan

, Fioratti

, et al. At my own pace, space, and place: A systematic review of qualitative studies of enablers and barriers to telehealth interventions for people with chronic pain. Pain, 2022; 163(2):e165-e181; doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002364

World Physiotherapy. Report of the World Physiotherapy/INPTRA Digital Physical Therapy Practice Task Force. World Physiotherapy: London, UK; 2019.

10.

Scott Kruse

, Karem

, Shifflett

, et al. Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare, 2018; 24(1):4–12; doi: 10.1177/1357633X16674087

11.

Cottrell

, Hill

, O'Leary

, et al. Patients are willing to use telehealth for the multidisciplinary management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions: A cross-sectional survey. J Telemed Telecare, 2018; 24(7):445–452; doi: 10.1177/1357633X17706605

12.

ISO/TR 16056-1:2004(en), Health informatics—Interoperability of telehealth systems and networks—Part 1: Introduction and definitions. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:tr:16056:-1:ed-1:v1:en:term:3.76 [Last accessed: November 25, 2021].

13.

Suso-Martí

, La Touche

, Herranz-Gómez

, et al. Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in physical therapist practice: An umbrella and mapping review with meta-meta-analysis. Phys Ther, 2021; 101(5):pzab075; doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab075

14.

Eze

, Mateus

, Cravo Oliveira Hashiguchi

. Telemedicine in the OECD: An umbrella review of clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient experience and implementation. PLoS One, 2020; 15(8):e0237585; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237585

15.

Cuenca-Martínez

, Calatayud

, Suso-Martí

, et al. Behavior modification techniques on patients with chronic pain in the context of COVID-19 telerehabilitation: An umbrella review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022; 19(9):5260; doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095260

16.

Lin

, Wiles

, Waller

, et al. What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Eleven consistent recommendations from high-quality clinical practice guidelines: Systematic review. Br J Sports Med, 2020; 54(2):79–86; doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099878

17.

Boonstra

, Reneman

, Waaksma

, et al. Predictors of multidisciplinary treatment outcome in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Disabil Rehabil, 2015; 37(14):1242–1250; doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.961657

18.

Dworkin

, Turk

, Farrar

, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain, 2005; 113(1):9–19; doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012

19.

Page

, McKenzie

, Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021; 372:n71; doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

20.

Gates

, Gates

, Pieper

, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: Development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ, 2022; 378:e070849; doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070849

21.

Miller

, Forrest

. Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions. J Evid Based Dental Pract, 2001; 1(2):136–141; doi: 10.1016/S1532-3382(01)70024-3

22.

King

Acute Pain, Subacute Pain, and Chronic Pain. In: Encyclopedia of Pain. (Gebhart GF, Schmidt RF, eds.) Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg; 2013: pp. 60–63.

23.

Shea

, Reeves

, Wells

, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017; 358:j4008; doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008

24.

Pollock

, Li

, Deeks

. Chapter 6: Choosing Effect Measures and Computing Estimates of Effect. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022). (Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. eds.) Cochrane; 2022. Available from: https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

25.

Jackson

, Law

, Rücker

, et al. The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: A useful refinement but are there any residual concerns?. Statist Med, 2017; 36(25):3923–3934; doi: 10.1002/sim.7411

26.

Balduzzi

, Rücker

, Schwarzer

. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evid Based Mental Health, 2019; 22(4):153–160; doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117

27.

Norman

, Sloan

, Wyrwich

. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care, 2003; 41(5):582–592; doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C

28.

Pieper

, Antoine

, Mathes

, et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014; 67(4):368–375; doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007

29.

Lara-Palomo

, Gil-Martínez

, Ramírez-García

, et al. Efficacy of e-Health Interventions in Patients with Chronic Low-Back Pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Telemed J E Health, 2022; 28(12):1734–1752; doi: 10.1089/tmj.2021.0599

30.

Adamse

, Dekker-Van Weering

, van Etten-Jamaludin

, et al. The effectiveness of exercise-based telemedicine on pain, physical activity and quality of life in the treatment of chronic pain: A systematic review. J Telemed Telecare, 2018; 24(8):511–526; doi: 10.1177/1357633X17716576

31.

Cottrell

, Galea

, O'Leary

, et al. Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil, 2017; 31(5):625–638; doi: 10.1177/0269215516645148

32.

de Oliveira Lima

, Saragiotto

, Costa

LOP

, et al. Self-guided web-based pain education for people with musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther, 2021; 101(10):pzab167; doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab167

33.

O'Brien

, Hodder

, Wiggers

, et al. Effectiveness of telephone-based interventions for managing osteoarthritis and spinal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 2018; 6:e5846; doi: 10.7717/peerj.5846

34.

Cuenca-Martínez

, López-Bueno

, Suso-Martí

, et al. Implementation of online behavior modification techniques in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med, 2022; 11(7):1806; doi: 10.3390/jcm11071806

35.

Chen

, Wu

, Lv

, et al. Efficacy of mobile health in patients with low back pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth, 2021; 9(6):e26095; doi: 10.2196/26095

36.

Dario

, Moreti Cabral

, Almeida

, et al. Effectiveness of telehealth-based interventions in the management of non-specific low back pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Spine J, 2017; 17(9):1342–1351; doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.008

37.

, Liu

, Cai

, et al. The efficacy of e-health in the self-management of chronic low back pain: A meta analysis. Int J Nurs Stud, 2020; 106:103507; doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103507

38.

, Hu

, Dong

, et al. Self-management program for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns, 2017; 100(1):37–49; doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.029

39.

Chen

, Or

, Chen

. Effects of technology-supported exercise programs on the knee pain, physical function, and quality of life of individuals with knee osteoarthritis and/or chronic knee pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2021; 28(2):414–423; doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocaa282

40.

Safari

, Jackson

, Sheffield

. Digital self-management interventions for people with osteoarthritis: Systematic review with meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res, 2020; 22(7):e15365; doi: 10.2196/15365

41.

Schäfer

AGM

, Zalpour

, von Piekartz

, et al. The efficacy of electronic health-supported home exercise interventions for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res, 2018; 20(4):e152; doi: 10.2196/jmir.9465

42.

Xie

, Wang

, et al. Effect of internet-based rehabilitation programs on improvement of pain and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res, 2021; 23(1):e21542; doi: 10.2196/21542

43.

Yang

, Li

, Cai

, et al. Effectiveness of telehealth-based exercise interventions on pain, physical function and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs, 2023; 32(11–12):2505–2520; doi: 10.1111/jocn.16388

44.

Bernardy

, Klose

, Welsch

, et al. Efficacy, acceptability and safety of Internet-delivered psychological therapies for fibromyalgia syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Pain, 2019; 23(1):3–14; doi: 10.1002/ejp.1284

45.

Dias

, Oliveira

, Borges

PRT

, et al. Effectiveness of exercises by telerehabilitation on pain, physical function and quality of life in people with physical disabilities: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with GRADE recommendations. Br J Sports Med, 2021; 55(3):155–162; doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101375

46.

Eccleston

, Fisher

, Craig

, et al. Psychological therapies (Internet-delivered) for the management of chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014; 2014(2):CD010152; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010152.pub2

47.

Mehta

, Peynenburg

, Hadjistavropoulos

. Internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic health conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Med, 2019; 42(2):169–187; doi: 10.1007/s10865-018-9984-x

48.

Moman

, Dvorkin

, Pollard

, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of unguided electronic and mobile health technologies for chronic pain-is it time to start prescribing electronic health applications?. Pain Med, 2019; 20(11):2238–2255; doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz164

49.

Dear

, Gandy

, Karin

, et al. The pain course: Exploring predictors of clinical response to an Internet-delivered pain management program. Pain, 2016; 157(10):2257–2268; doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000639

50.

Brigo

, Rintala

, Kossi

, et al. Using telehealth to guarantee the continuity of rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022; 19(16):10325; doi: 10.3390/ijerph191610325

51.

Furukawa

, Noma

, Caldwell

, et al. Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: A contribution from network meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 2014; 130(3):181–192; doi: 10.1111/acps.12275

52.

Deslauriers

, Déry

, Proulx

, et al. Effects of waiting for outpatient physiotherapy services in persons with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review. Disabil Rehabil, 2021; 43(5):611–620; doi: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1639222

53.

Lynch

, Campbell

, Clark

, et al. A systematic review of the effect of waiting for treatment for chronic pain. Pain, 2008; 136(1):97–116; doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.06.018

54.

Hopayian

, Notley

. A systematic review of low back pain and sciatica patients' expectations and experiences of health care. Spine J, 2014; 14(8):1769–1780; doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.02.029

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.01 MB

0.61 MB

0.06 MB

0.03 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB

0.08 MB

0.13 MB

0.02 MB

0.00 MB