Table 2 Summary of results from studies using telerehabilitation as an intervention for SCI in LMICs.
Study | RoB 2 [34] | ROBINS-I [35] | Results | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outcome measures | Outcome | Statistical significance | ||||
Arora et al. [41] | Low | – | Moderate | Mean adjusted between-group difference: | 95% CI; p value: | |
Primary: | Primary: | Primary: | ||||
size of PU at 12 weeks (cm2) | 2.3 | −0.3–4.9; p = 0.08 | ||||
Secondary: | Secondary: | Secondary: | ||||
PUSH score /17 | 1.8 | 0.3–3.3; p = 0.02 | ||||
Depth of PU (cm) | 0.2 | −0.1–−0.5; p = 0.17 | ||||
Undermining distance of PU (cm) | 0.6 | −0.2–1.4; p = 0.14 | ||||
Braden score (23 points | 1.4 | 0.7–2.0; p < 0.001 | ||||
Depression items—HADS (21 points) | 0.2 | −1.1–1.4; p = 0.77 | ||||
Participation items—WHODAS (40 points) | 2.3 | 0.8–3.8; p = 0.003 | ||||
Utility score—EQ-5D-5L (units) | 0.1 | 0.02–0.2; p = 0.01 | ||||
Self-rated health EQ-5D-VAS (100 points) | 10.5 | 4.5–16.6; p = 0.001 | ||||
Participants' impression of PU status (10 points) | 0.8 | −0.1–1.7; p = 0.08 | ||||
Participants' confidence to manage PU (10 points) | 1.7 | 1.0–2.3; p < 0.001 | ||||
Clinician’s impression of PU status (10 points) | 0.6 | −0.3–1.4; p = 0.18 | ||||
Participants' satisfaction (10 points) | 2.1 | 1.3–2.8; p < 0.001 | ||||
Self-report time for PU resolution | Self-report time for PU resolution | Self-report time for PU resolution | ||||
Hossain et al. [42] | Low | – | Moderate | Primary: | Primary: | Primary: Hazard ratio from unadjusted Cox model |
All-cause mortality rate | Intervention group 15/204 (7.4%) died Control group 16/206 (7.8%) died | 0.93 (95% CI, 0.46–1.89; p from log rank test 0.85) | ||||
Secondary Continuous Outcomes: | Secondary: Continuous Outcomes (Adjusted between-group differences): | Secondary: Continuous Outcomes (95% CI; p value): | ||||
SCI-SCS (/40) | −0.3 | −0.8–0.3; p = 0.39 | ||||
PUSH (/17) | −0.2 | −0.9–0.6; p = 0.69 | ||||
CESD-R (/60) | 0.0 | −2.1–2.1; p = 1.00 | ||||
WHODAS (/40) | 0.2 | −0.8–1.2; p = 0.69 | ||||
SF12 PCS | 0.7 | −0.3–1.8; p = 0.18 | ||||
SF12 MCS | −0.1 | −2.6–2.4; p = 0.94 | ||||
SCIM-SR (/100) | 1.3 | −1.0–3.6; p = 0.27 | ||||
Binary Outcomes: | Binary Outcomes (Effect calculated with log-binomial regression): | Binary Outcomes: (Adjusted risk ratio) | ||||
PU status | 0.92 | 0.56–1.53 | ||||
Bed-bound | 0.80 | 0.22–2.91 | ||||
House-bound | 0.81 | 0.52–1.14 | ||||
Unemployed | 1.02 | 0.92–1.13 | ||||
Hossain et al. [43] | Unclear | – | Low | Primary: All-cause mortality rate Secondary: SCI secondary conditions scale (/49) Presence of PU (n) PUSH (/17) CES depression scale (/60) SF12 PCS SF12 MCS SCIM (/100) WHODAS (/40) Number of days out of bed in past week Number of days out the house in the past week Number of days working in the past week | Primary: Intervention group 1/15 (6.7%) died Control group 1/15 (6.7%) died Secondary: No clear between group differences | No statistical analysis performed |
Tyagi et al. [44] | – | Very low | SCIM (/40) | Initial 4 weeks: Participant 1: 14/40 Participant 2: 5/40 Proceeding 4 weeks (implementation of intervention): SCIM increased Participant 1: 27/40 Participant 2: 16/40 | No statistical analysis performed | |
Leochico et al. [45] | – | Very low | Primary: Perspective of telerehabilitation Quantitative: Numerical questionnaire pre- and post-telerehabilitation intervention Qualitative: Interview | Primary: Quantitative: No improvement to score Qualitative: Perceptions of telerehabilitation improved following telerehabilitation use | No statistical analysis performed | |
