Objective The purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy. Methods Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. In addition, the records in PROSPERO and Epistemonikos and PEDro were consulted. Systematic reviews of different conditions, populations and contexts, where the intervention to be evaluated is telerehabilitation by physical therapy were included. The outcomes were clinical effectiveness depending on specific condition, functionality, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence and safety. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by a reviewer with non-independent verification by a second reviewer. The findings are reported qualitatively by tables and figures. Results Fifty-three systematic reviews were included of which 17 were assessed as having low risk of bias. Fifteen reviews were on cardiorespiratory rehabilitation, 14 on musculoskeletal conditions and 13 on neurorehabilitation. Other 11 reviews addressed other types of conditions and rehabilitation. Thirteen reviews evaluated with low risk of bias showed results in favor of telerehabilitation versus in-person rehabilitation or no-rehabilitation, while 17 reported no differences between the groups. Thirty-five reviews with unclear or high risk of bias showed mixed results. Conclusions Despite the contradictory results, telerehabilitation in physical therapy could be comparable to in-person rehabilitation or better than no-rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low back pain, hip and knee replacement, multiple sclerosis, and also in the context of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. It is imperative to conduct better quality clinical trials and systematic reviews. Impact Providing with the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of covid-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed that neuromuscular or functional electrical stimulation may have effects on respiratory muscles through its systemic effects, similar to those produced by exercise training. However, its impact on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation has not been adequately defined. We sought to evaluate the effect of neuromuscular or functional electrical stimulation on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill subjects. METHODS: We systematically searched 3 databases up to August 2019 (ie, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) as well as other resources to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of neuromuscular or functional electrical stimulation compared to usual care/rehabilitation or placebo of neuromuscular or functional electrical stimulation on the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: After reviewing 1,200 single records, 12 RCTs (N 5 530 subjects) fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Three studies included only subjects with COPD (n 5 106 subjects), whereas the rest considered subjects with different diseases. The most frequently stimulated muscle group was the quadriceps. Neuromuscular or functional electrical stimulation may decrease the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (mean difference 5 -2.68 d, 95% CI -4.35 to -1.02, I 2 5 50%, P 5 .002; 10 RCTs; low quality of evidence), and we are uncertain whether this effect may be more pronounced in subjects with COPD (mean difference 5 -2.90 d, 95% CI -4.58 to -1.23, I 2 5 9%, P < .001; 3 RCTs; very low quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Neuromuscular or functional electrical stimulation may slightly reduce the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation; we are uncertain whether these results are found in subjects with COPD compared to subjects receiving usual care or placebo, and the quality of the body of evidence is low to very low. More RCTs are needed with a larger number of subjects, with more homogeneous diseases and basal conditions, and especially with a more adequate methodological design.