Safety of videoconferencing for physical rehabilitation and exercise: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The certainty of evidence is low because many studies had serious risk of bias in how adverse events were measured and reported. Most trials did not report pre-specified protocols for monitoring adverse events, and 55% reported no adverse events at all, leading to sparse data. Several trials relied on participant recollection of adverse events at the end of the study, which may introduce recall bias. The review included a wide range of clinical populations (neurological, musculoskeletal, cardiac, etc.), so results may not apply equally to every specific patient group. Adherence to videoconferencing sessions after an adverse event was not monitored in any included trial.

The authors received no financial support for the research and declared no potential conflicts of interest.

Do not interpret the null finding as proof that videoconferencing is identical in safety to in-person care. The certainty of evidence is low because most trials did not rigorously monitor or report adverse events, and 55% reported none at all. The similar rates may reflect under-reporting rather than true equivalence.