Trial reportJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
The efficacy and cost-effectiveness analysis of telerehabilitation for patients after arthroscopic ACL-reconstruction: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Agreement Between Video-Based and In-Person Assessment in Patients with Knee Pain-A Prospective Repeated-Measures Pragmatic Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation (TELE) compared to face-to-face rehabilitation (FTF) in patients following arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. Given the increasing demand for accessible rehabilitation methods, this trial investigates the feasibility of implementing TELE in a middle-income country like China.
methodsA prospective, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 68 participants randomly assigned to either TELE or FTF rehabilitation. Participants were followed for 12 weeks, with assessments at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks after surgery. Primary outcomes included knee function (measured using the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, IKDC). Secondary outcomes included pain, mobility, and functional status. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).
resultsBoth groups showed similar improvements in clinical outcomes, with no significant differences in IKDC scores, pain levels, or range of motion at 12 weeks. However, TELE rehabilitation was significantly less expensive, with a total cost of 58,303.18 CNY compared to 82,358.90 CNY for FTF (p < 0.001). The ICER analysis demonstrated that TELE was a cost-effective alternative, with substantial cost savings per unit of effectiveness.
conclusionTelerehabilitation may be a cost-effective and clinically comparable alternative to traditional face-to-face rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction. These findings may support the broader implementation of TELE in regions with limited access to in-person rehabilitation, especially in low- and middle-income countries like China. Further studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm the long-term cost-effectiveness and health benefits of TELE.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/ ). Trial registration ChiCTR2100053313.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.