Comparing the Effectiveness of Digital and Conventional Rehabilitation Aftercare on Work Ability in Orthopedic Patients: A Longitudinal Study in Germany.

The study design was not fully randomized. The conventional IRENA group was self-selected, and the control group was smaller than planned because many patients refused randomization to no care. The apparent advantage of the digital group in unadjusted analysis was likely due to baseline imbalances, as the control group was older and had a higher proportion of males. Adherence was self-reported and not objectively verified by platform logs or attendance records. Work ability was assessed via self-report, which may not capture objective physical or functional capacity. The follow-up period was only four months, which is insufficient to determine long-term sustainability of effects.

The study was funded by the Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT). No commercial conflicts of interest were reported in the provided text.

Do not conclude that digital rehabilitation is more effective than conventional care. The initial statistical advantage of the digital group disappeared once the analysis adjusted for baseline differences in age, gender, and employment status, indicating the effect was likely due to selection bias rather than the intervention itself.