Objective Telerehabilitation is an option that should be adapted as soon as possible in order to face the crisis caused by COVID-19. An umbrella and mapping review with meta–meta-analysis (MMA) of the available scientific evidence was performed to determine if telerehabilitation could be an effective alternative to conventional rehabilitation in physical therapist practice. Methods A systematic review of reviews and a synthesis of the findings of all systematic evidence published to date with a visual map and a meta-meta-analysis (MMA) were performed. A systematic search was realized in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE (PubMed), and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers performed a data analysis and assessed the quality of the included reviews, assessing the risk of bias using ROBIS. Results Twenty-nine articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected and divided according to the type of patient targeted for rehabilitation (patients with cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neurological conditions). The MMA regarding physical function between telerehabilitation and usual care rehabilitation did not reveal a statistically significant difference for patients with cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. For patients with neurological conditions, the MMA revealed a statistically significant but negligible effect size in 6 reviews in favor of telerehabilitation (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.03–0.34). Conclusion The results of the present review showed that telerehabilitation offers positive clinical results, even comparable to conventional face-to-face rehabilitation approaches. Impact The advantages of lower cost and less interference by the rehabilitation processes in patients’ daily life could justify implementing telerehabilitation in clinical settings in the COVID-19 era.

To assess neck disability with respect to jaw disability, craniocervical position, cervical alignment, and sensorimotor impairments in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD), a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies trials were conducted. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in the association between neck disability and jaw disability (standardized mean difference (SMD), 0.72 (0.56–0.82)). However, results showed no significant differences for cervical alignment (SMD, 0.02 (−0.31–0.36)) or for the craniocervical position (SMD, −0.09 (−0.27–0.09)). There was moderate evidence for lower pressure pain thresholds (PPT) and for limited cervical range of motion (ROM). There was limited evidence for equal values for maximal strength between the patients with TMD and controls. There was also limited evidence for reduced cervical endurance and conflicting evidence for abnormal electromyographic (EMG) activity and motor control in TMD patients. Results showed a clinically relevant association between cervical and mandibular disability in patients with TMD. Regarding sensory-motor alterations, the most conclusive findings were observed in the reduction of PPT and cervical ROM, with moderate evidence of their presence in the patients with TMD. Lastly, the evidence on impaired motor control and cervical EMG activity in patients with TMD was conflicting.

Purpose To assess the effects of pain neuroscience education (PNE) on patients with fibromyalgia (FM) in terms of pain intensity, fibromyalgia impact, anxiety, and pain catastrophizing. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with RStudio software for relevant outcomes and were pooled in a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Results A total of 8 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in the pain intensity with a moderate clinical effect in 7 studies in the post-intervention assessment (SMD:-0.76; 95% CI:-1.33– -0.19; p < 0.05) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2=92%) but not in fibromyalgia impact, anxiety, and pain catastrophizing (p > 0.05). Regarding the follow-up assessment, only the fibromyalgia impact showed significant improvements with a very small clinical effect in 9 studies (SMD:-0.44; 95% CI:-0.73– -0.14; p < 0.05) with evidence of significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2 = 80%). Applying a sensitivity analysis with the PNE face-to-face interventions, the meta-analysis showed a significant decrease of pain intensity with a moderate clinical effect at post-intervention and follow-up without evidence of significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05, I2=10%). Conclusions There is low quality evidence that in patients with FM, PNE can decrease the pain intensity post-intervention and also the fibromyalgia impact in the follow-up. However, it appears that PNE showed no effect on anxiety and pain catastrophizing.

No abstract