ArticleTrials2026
Is telerehabilitation inferior to face-to-face rehabilitation at improving adherence and pain in patients with chronic low back pain? Protocol for a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial with economic evaluation.
Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise is a key component in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Barriers such as geographic distance, treatment costs, lack of support, and low self-efficacy can limit access to physiotherapy and compromise adherence. Synchronous telerehabilitation (ST) has the potential to overcome these barriers, support self-management, and improve adherence to exercise. However, its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with face-to-face rehabilitation remain unclear. This study aims to investigate whether ST is non-inferior to face-to-face rehabilitation in improving adherence and reducing pain and its cost-effectiveness in patients with CLBP.
methodsThis non-inferiority randomized controlled trial (RCT), parallel, two-arm with economic evaluation, will be conducted in a middle-income country (Brazil). A total of 160 individuals with CLBP, aged between 18 and 65 years, will be recruited. Participants will be randomly allocated into two groups: ST or face-to-face rehabilitation. Both groups will receive seven individual 60-min physiotherapy sessions over 12 weeks, including pain education, exercise therapy, and self-management strategies. Primary outcomes will be adherence and pain intensity. Secondary outcomes will include function, global perception of change, satisfaction, self-efficacy, therapeutic alliance, healthcare attendance and health-related quality of life. Outcomes assessments will be conducted at baseline, post-intervention (3 month), and at 6- and 9-month follow-up after allocation. The economic evaluation will be conducted from a societal perspective with a 9-month time horizon. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be conducted for pain intensity and quality-adjusted life years, respectively. DISCUSSION: If ST is non-inferior to face-to-face rehabilitation, it could serve as a clinically viable, cost-effective alternative for managing CLBP, expanding access to care while maintaining treatment quality. The findings may guide physiotherapists, healthcare systems, and policymakers in integrating telehealth strategies into routine rehabilitation practice.
trial registrationBrazilian Clinical Trials Registry ID: RBR-57pgmjr. Registered on November 13, 2025.
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.