To summarize the measurement properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) and the clinical utility of measurement tools used in telerehabilitation in individuals with neurological conditions.
Design
Systematic review.
Subjects
Individuals with neurological conditions.
Intervention
Not applicable.
Main measures
The methodological quality of the studies using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist, the quality of the measurement properties using the criteria for good measurement properties, and the clinical utility of the measurements using the Tyson & Connell scale.
Results
From the 22,188 identified studies, 47 were included. Forty-three measurement tools were identified. The main modes of administration were telephone and videoconference. Studies involved mostly individuals with stroke, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's disease. Criterion validity and reliability were the most investigated measurement properties. None of the tools had their responsiveness investigated. Twenty-two measurement tools have at least one measurement property evaluated as “sufficient” in a study with appropriate methodological quality (“very good” or “adequate”). Nineteen measurement tools showed adequate clinical utility. Eight measurement tools, investigated in individuals with stroke, spinal cord injury or Alzheimer's disease, all administered by telephone, were recommended.
Conclusion
The present results can be used to assist in choosing appropriate measurement tools, both in research and clinical practice, during telerehabilitation in individuals with neurological conditions. Measurement error, content validity, structural validity, and responsiveness need to be further investigated. In addition, the measurement properties of tools used in telerehabilitation in other neurological conditions, such as Huntington's disease, should also be investigated.
World Health Organization. Neurological disorders: public health challenges. Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2006.
2.
De WitLTheunsPDejaegerE, et al.Long-term impact of stroke on patients’ health-related quality of life. Disabil Rehabil2017; 39: 1435–1440.
3.
KuopioAMMarttilaRJHeleniusH,et al.The quality of life in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disord: Off J Movement Disord Soc2000; 15: 216–223.
4.
MccabeMPMckernS. Quality of life and multiple sclerosis: comparison between people with multiple sclerosis and people from the general population. J Clin Psychol Med Settings2002; 9: 287–295.
5.
CiezaACauseyKKamenovK,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. Lancet2021; 396: 2006–2017.
6.
ScelzaWMKalpakjianCZZemperED,et al.Perceived barriers to exercise in people with spinal cord injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2005; 84: 576–583.
7.
RimmerJHWangESmithD. Barriers associated with exercise and community access for individuals with stroke. J Rehabil Res Dev2008; 45: 315–322.
8.
DomingosJRadderDRiggareS, et al.Implementation of a community-based exercise program for Parkinson patients: using boxing as an example. J Parkinsons Dis2019; 9: 615–623.
9.
PerettiAAmentaFTayebatiSK,et al.Telerehabilitation: review of the state-of-the-art and areas of application. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol2017; 4: e7511.
10.
BrennanDMMawsonSBrownsellS. Telerehabilitation: enabling the remote delivery of healthcare, rehabilitation, and self management. Stud Health Technol Inform2009; 145: 231–248.
11.
HjelmNM. Benefits and drawbacks of telemedicine. J Telemed Telecare2005; 11: 60–70.
12.
World Health Organization. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: implications for infection prevention precautions: scientific brief. 2020. Accessed in: December 2022.
13.
TcheroHTabue-TeguoMLannuzelA,et al.Telerehabilitation for stroke survivors: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res2018; 20: e10867.
14.
OwnsworthTArnautovskaUBeadleE,et al.Efficacy of telerehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. J Head Trauma Rehabil2018; 33: E33–E46.
15.
Di TellaSPagliariCBlasiV,et al.Integrated telerehabilitation approach in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare2020; 26: 385–399.
16.
AnnaswamyTMVerduzco-GutierrezMFriedenL. Telemedicine barriers and challenges for persons with disabilities: COVID-19 and beyond. Disabil Health J2020; 13: 100973.
17.
PortneyLG. Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 2020.
18.
SouzaACAlexandreNMCGuirardelloEB. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiol Serv Saude2017; 26: 649–659.
19.
TysonSConnellL. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of measures of walking and mobility in neurological conditions: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil2009; 23: 1018–1033.
20.
ValierARLamKC. Beyond the basics of clinical outcomes assessment: selecting appropriate patient-rated outcomes instruments for patient care. Athletic Training Educ J2015; 10: 91–100.
21.
ChirraMMarsiliLWattleyL, et al.Telemedicine in neurological disorders: opportunities and challenges. Telemed e-Health2019; 25: 541–550.
22.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg2021; 88: 105906.
23.
BritoSAFScianniAAPenichePC,et al.Measurement properties of outcome measures used in neurological telerehabilitation: a systematic review protocol. PloS one2022; 17: e0265841.
24.
MokkinkL. COSMIN Risk of bias checklist.cklist. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, 2018.
25.
PrinsenCAMokkinkLBBouterLM, et al.COSMIN Guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1147–1157.
26.
TerweeCBMokkinkLBKnolDL,et al.Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist.Qual Life Res2012; 21: 651–657.
27.
MokkinkLBDe VetHCPrinsenCA, et al.COSMIN Risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res2018; 27: 1171–1179.
28.
MartinsJCAguiarLTNadeauS,et al.Measurement properties of self-report physical activity assessment tools for patients with stroke: a systematic review. Braz J Phys Ther2019; 23: 476–490.
29.
ConnellLATysonSF. Clinical reality of measuring upper-limb ability in neurologic conditions: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2012; 93: 221–228.
30.
AvelinoPRMenezesKKNascimentoLR, et al.Validation of the telephone-based application of the ABILHAND for assessment of manual ability after stroke. J Neurol Phys Ther2020; 44: 256–260.
31.
AvelinoPRNascimentoLRMenezesKK, et al.Validation of the telephone-based assessment of locomotion ability after stroke. Int J Rehabil Res2021; 44: 88–91.
32.
Sola-VallsNBlancoYSepúlvedaM, et al.Walking function in clinical monitoring of multiple sclerosis by telemedicine. J Neurol2015; 262: 1706–1713.
33.
Della PietraGLSavioKOddoneE,et al.Validity and reliability of the Barthel index administered by telephone. Stroke2011; 42: 2077–2079.
34.
PrasadKKumarAMisraS, et al.Reliability and validity of telephonic Barthel Index: an experience from multi-centric randomized control study. Acta Neurol Belg2018; 118: 53–59.
35.
ChenXWShafeiMNAbdullahJM,et al.Reliability of telephone interview for assessment of long-term stroke outcomes: evidence from interrater analysis. Neuroepidemiology2019; 52: 214–219.
36.
MonteiroIMBoksayIAuerSR,et al.Reliability of routine clinical instruments for the assessment of Alzheimer's disease administered by telephone. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol1998; 11: 18–24.
37.
Cabrera-MartosIOrtiz-RubioATorres-SánchezI,et al.Agreement between face-to-face and tele-assessment of upper limb functioning in patients with Parkinson disease. PM&R2019; 11: 590–596.
38.
PalsboSEDawsonSJSavardL,et al.Televideo assessment using functional reach test and European stroke scale. J Rehab Res Dev2007; 44: 659–664.
39.
Solà-VallsNVicente-PascualMBlancoY, et al.Spanish validation of the telephone assessed expanded disability Status scale and patient determined disease steps in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord2019; 27: 333–339.
40.
SyedMJShahZAwanS,et al.Telephone validation of an Urdu translated version of the extended disability severity scale in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler Relat Disord2021; 48: 102684.
41.
BoveRBevanCCrabtreeE, et al.Toward a low-cost, in-home, telemedicine-enabled assessment of disability in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis J2019; 25: 1526–1534.
42.
AkbarNHonarmandKKouN,et al.Validity of an internet version of the multiple sclerosis neuropsychological questionnaire. Multiple Sclerosis J2010; 16: 1500–1506.
43.
YoshidaKYamaokaYEguchiY, et al.Remote neuropsychological assessment of elderly Japanese population using the Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale: a validation study. J Telemed Telecare2020; 26: 482–487.
44.
Dos AnjosSMMarkVWRodriguezCM, et al.Reliability and validity of the lower extremity motor activity log for measuring real-world leg use in adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2021; 102: 626–632.
45.
WeaverKEGoldmanJGRibbensN,et al.Validation of an online screener, the Mediterranean eating pattern for Americans-III in older patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr2020; 39: 30–43.
46.
NewkirkLAKimJMThompsonJM,et al.Validation of a 26-point telephone version of the mini-mental state examination. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol2004; 17: 8187.
47.
CamozzatoALKochhannRGodinhoC,et al.Validation of a telephone screening test for Alzheimer's disease. Aging, Neuropsychol Cogn2011; 18: 180–194.
48.
ImamBAntonHAMillerWC. Measurement properties of a telephone version of the modified fatigue impact scale among individuals with a traumatic spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord2012; 50: 920–924.
49.
JanssenPMVisserNAMeesSMD,et al.Comparison of telephone and face-to-face assessment of the modified rankin scale. Cerebrovasc Dis2010; 29: 137–139.
50.
BrunoAAkinwuntanAELinC, et al.Simplified modified Rankin scale questionnaire: reproducibility over the telephone and validation with quality of life. Stroke2011; 42: 2276–2279.
51.
BaggioJASantos-PontelliTECougo-PintoPT, et al.Validation of a structured interview for telephone assessment of the modified Rankin scale in Brazilian stroke patients. Cerebrovasc Dis2014; 38: 297–301.
52.
RosatoRTestaSBertolottoA, et al.eMSQOL-29: prospective validation of the abbreviated, electronic version of MSQOL-54. Multiple Sclerosis J2019; 25: 856–866.
53.
ShafqatSKvedarJCGuanciMM,et al.Role for telemedicine in acute stroke: feasibility and reliability of remote administration of the NIH stroke scale. Stroke1999; 30: 2141–2145.
54.
WangSLeeSBPardueC, et al.Remote evaluation of acute ischemic stroke: reliability of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale via telestroke. Stroke2003; 34: e188–e191.
55.
DemaerschalkBMVeguntaSVargasBB,et al.Reliability of real-time video smartphone for assessing National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores in acute stroke patients. Stroke2012; 43: 3271–3277.
56.
CuthbertJPWhiteneckGGCorriganJD,et al.The reliability of a computer-assisted telephone interview version of the Ohio State University traumatic brain injury identification method. J Head Trauma Rehabil2016; 31: E36–E42.
57.
ManDWChungJCMakMK. Development and validation of the Online Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test (OL-RBMT) for people with stroke. NeuroRehabilitation2009; 24: 231–236.
58.
LamKHKwaVI. Validity of the PROMIS-10 global health assessed by telephone and on paper in minor stroke and transient ischaemic attack in the Netherlands. BMJ open2018; 8: e019919.
59.
ChenXFanXZhaoL, et al.Telephone-based cognitive screening for stroke patients in China. Int Psychogeriatr2015; 27: 2079–2085.
60.
LamKHvan OirschotPden TeulingB, et al.Reliability, construct and concurrent validity of a smartphone-based cognition test in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis J2021; 28: 300–308.
61.
BourkeAKScotlandALipsmeierF,et al.Gait characteristics harvested during a smartphone-based self-administered 2-minute walk test in people with multiple sclerosis: test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change. Sensors2020; 20: 5906.
62.
AroraMHarveyLALavrencicL, et al.A telephone-based version of the spinal cord injury–secondary conditions scale: a reliability and validity study. Spinal Cord2016; 54: 402–405.
63.
DuncanPRekerDKwonS, et al.Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care2005; 43: 507–515.
64.
KwonSDuncanPStudenskiS,et al.Measuring stroke impact with SIS: construct validity of SIS telephone administration. Qual Life Res2006; 15: 367–376.
65.
JärvenpääTRinneJORäihäI, et al.Characteristics of two telephone screens for cognitive impairment. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord2002; 13: 149–155.
66.
BarkerRNAmstersDIKendallMD,et al.Reliability of the clinical outcome variables scale when administered via telephone to assess mobility in people with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2007; 88: 632–637.
67.
BarberMStottDJ. Validity of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) in post-stroke subjects. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2004; 19: 75–79.
68.
DesmondDWTatemichiTKHanzawaL. The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS): reliability and validity in a stroke sample. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry1994; 9: 803–807.
69.
PendleburySTWelchSJCuthbertsonFC,et al.Telephone assessment of cognition after transient ischemic attack and stroke: modified telephone interview of cognitive status and telephone Montreal cognitive assessment versus face-to-face Montreal cognitive assessment and neuropsychological battery. Stroke2013; 44: 227–229.
70.
Forno GDChiovendaPBressiF, et al.Use of an Italian version of the telephone interview for cognitive status in Alzheimer's disease. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry: J Psychiatry Late Life Allied Sci2006; 21: 126–133.
71.
KonagayaYWashimiYHattoriH,et al.Validation of the telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS) in Japanese. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry: J Psychiatry Late Life Allied Sci2007; 22: 695–700.
72.
BaccaroASegreAYan-PangW, et al.Validation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status among stroke patients. Geriatr Gerontol Int2015; 15: 1118–1126.
73.
ZietemannVKopczakAMüllerC,et al.Validation of the telephone interview of cognitive status and telephone Montreal cognitive assessment against detailed cognitive testing and clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment after stroke. Stroke2017; 48: 2952–2957.
74.
WongANyenhuisDBlackSE, et al.Montreal cognitive assessment 5-minute protocol is a brief, valid, reliable, and feasible cognitive screen for telephone administration. Stroke2015; 46: 1059–1064.
75.
GoldsteinLBLydenPMathiasSD, et al.Telephone assessment of functioning and well-being following stroke: is it feasible?J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2002; 1: 80–87.
76.
MorleyDDummettSKellyL,et al.Evaluating the psychometric properties of an e-based version of the 39-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes2015; 13: 1–5.
77.
LynnMRDetermination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res1986; 35: 382–385.
78.
PolitDFBeckCTOwenSV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health2007; 30: 459–467.
79.
Marinho-BuzelliARBonnymanAMVerrierMC. The effects of aquatic therapy on mobility of individuals with neurological diseases: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil2015; 29: 741–751.
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.
