Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39352290›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024

Non-inferiority of hybrid outpatient telerehabilitation for patients with back pain: 3-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Richard Albers, Stella Lemke, David Fauser, Sebastian Knapp, Gert Krischak, Matthias Bethge

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Richard AlbersUniversity of Lübeck, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Lübeck, Germany - richard.albers@uksh.de.
Stella LemkeUniversity of Lübeck, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Lübeck, Germany.
David FauserUniversity of Lübeck, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Sebastian KnappGOREHA GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
Gert KrischakNanz Medico GmbH & Co. KG, Stuttgart, Germany.
Matthias BethgeUniversity of Lübeck, Institute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternational studies identified comparable or better effects for telerehabilitation compared with face-to-face rehabilitation or no rehabilitation in people with back pain. In German rehabilitation centers, a standardized back school for patients with back pain is provided usually face-to-face as part of a multimodal rehabilitation program.

aimTo examine the non-inferiority of a three-week, digitally assisted, multimodal rehabilitation that applies a digital version of a standardized back school (intervention group [IG]) against the same rehabilitation program applying the back school face-to-face (control group [CG]).

designOur study was a non-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial. Recruitment was conducted from 2022 to 2023. We analyzed outcomes at the end of rehabilitation and 3 months later.

settingImplementation of the study and enrollment of participants was conducted in 8 German outpatient rehabilitation centers. POPULATION: Rehabilitants aged 18-65 years with back pain were included.

methods284 patients with back pain were randomized into the IG or CG using computer-generated block randomization. We excluded 14 patients as they withdrew their consent and requested removal of their data. We finally included 270 patients (IG: N.=127, CG: N.=143). The primary outcome was self-reported pain self-efficacy (10-60 points). Secondary outcomes were, amongst others, current health status and pain.

resultsOur primary adjusted intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated that hybrid digitally assisted rehabilitation was non-inferior to face-to-face rehabilitation at the end of rehabilitation (b=-0.55; 95% CI=-2.75 to ∞) and at the 3-month follow-up (b=0.24; 95% CI=-2.86 to ∞). These results were in line with a non-adjusted intention-to-treat analysis, an adjusted complete case analysis, and an adjusted per-protocol analysis. Secondary outcomes were tested for superiority. Our primary adjusted intention-to-treat analysis found no significant group differences in the secondary outcomes.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that hybrid digitally assisted rehabilitation in patients with back pain is a sound alternative to face-to-face rehabilitation in an outpatient rehabilitation setting. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Hybrid digitally assisted rehabilitation can improve flexibility and access to rehabilitation. Further studies should examine which components and which time frame of rehabilitation can be digitized without any loss of effectiveness.

Indexed as

Back PainTelerehabilitationAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID39352290
PMCPMC11713625

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.