Evidence-based position paper on Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) professional practice on telerehabilitation. The European PRM position (UEMS PRM Section).
Mauro Zampolini, Aydan Oral, Nikolaos Barotsis and 11 others
PMID 38477069WHAT IT FOUND
Telerehabilitation outcomes often match in-person care for stroke, COPD, and knee pain, but evidence is low-certainty for shoulder pain and low vision.
Remote exams miss manual findings, so use it when in-person is unavailable, not as a full replacement.
Key findings
01For stroke, COPD, and knee osteoarthritis, telerehabilitation showed comparable or non-inferior outcomes to in-person care, though certainty varied from low to strong depending on the specific measure.
02Remote assessment lacks manual and tactile information, which can make reliability suboptimal for physical examinations and primary diagnoses in newly referred or complex patients.
03Barriers to implementation include technological availability, need for training, device difficulty, cost, internet connectivity issues, and patient concerns about privacy and relationship quality.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 paper is a position statement and consensus, not a single primary study, so it aggregates evidence of varying quality. Many findings are based on low or very low certainty evidence, particularly for shoulder pain, low vision, and some neurological outcomes. The review highlights that remote assessment cannot replace manual/tactile examination, which limits diagnostic accuracy for new referrals. Barriers such as technology access, digital literacy, and privacy concerns are noted but not quantified in terms of impact on outcomes.
Declared interests
The paper is an official position of the UEMS PRM Section. Funding and conflicts of interest are declared in a separate section (not fully detailed in the provided text, but the nature of the document implies professional society endorsement).
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume telerehabilitation is equivalent to in-person care for all conditions or patients. The evidence is strongest for maintenance and specific functional outcomes, but weak for diagnostic accuracy and conditions like shoulder pain. Also, do not overlook barriers; patients may find it convenient but struggle with technology, privacy, or lack of manual guidance, which can lead to frustration and dropout.