Effects of Telerehabilitation on Functional and Other Health-Related Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients and Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Yee Hong Low, Fuquan Zhang, San San Tay
PMID 42769661WHAT IT FOUND
In adults with colorectal cancer, telerehabilitation did not improve physical function, the main outcome.
Quality of life scores were higher, but the gain was smaller than the level considered clinically meaningful.
Key findings
01The pooled analysis of physical function found no difference between telerehabilitation and control groups.
02Pooled quality of life favored telerehabilitation, but the authors state the effect was below the minimal clinically important difference.
03Telerehabilitation was feasible and safe, but adherence declined over time.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The pooled physical function result used only two trials and 64 participants. The quality of life result used four trials and 193 participants. The physical activity result used three trials and 193 participants. Many trials did not blind participants and used subjective outcome measures. Three trials had high risk of bias from missing outcome data. Three trials had some concerns about randomization because randomization and concealment were not reported. Interventions varied widely across text messages, phone calls, apps, pedometers, exercise videos, and virtual reality. Adherence declined over time. No formal certainty assessment was performed. The review included only English language studies.
Declared interests
The investigators reported no financial or nonfinancial disclosures.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the quality of life improvement as proof that telerehabilitation works. The primary physical function outcome showed no difference, and the authors state the quality of life effect was below the minimal clinically important difference. The quality of life result came from four trials and 193 participants.