Mg. Aguilera-Eguía, Raúl

Objectives: The conduct of systematic reviews (SRs) and overviews share several similarities. However, because the unit of analysis for overviews is the SRs, there are some unique challenges. One of the most critical issues to manage when conducting an overview is the overlap of data across the primary studies included in the SRs. This metaresearch study aimed to describe the frequency of strategies to manage the overlap in overviews of exercise-related interventions. Study Design and Setting: A systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other sources was conducted from inception to June 2022. We included overviews of SRs that considered primary studies and evaluated the effectiveness of exercise-related interventions for any health condition. The overviews were screened by two authors independently, and the extraction was performed by one author and checked by a second. We found 353 overviews published between 2005 and 2022 that met the inclusion criteria. Results: One hundred and sixty-four overviews (46%) used at least one strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap, with a matrix (32/164; 20%), absolute frequency (34/164; 21%), and authors’ algorithms (24/164; 15%) being the most used methods, respectively. From 2016 onwards, there has been a trend toward increasing the use of some strategies to manage overlap. Of the 108 overviews that used some strategy to resolve the overlap, ie, avoiding double or multiple counting of primary study data, 79 (73%) succeeded. In overviews where no strategies to manage overlap were reported (n 5 189/353; 54%), 16 overview authors (8%) recognized this as a study limitation. Conclusion: Although there is a trend toward increasing its use, only half of the authors of the overviews of exercise-related interventions used a strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap in the primary studies’ data. In the future, authors should report such strategies to communicate more valid results.

Introduction: Rehabilitation is considered a key intervention in health care. Clinical registries, defined as an organized system that uses observational methods to collect information to assess specific outcomes in a defined population, can contribute to assessing the impact of the rehabilitation intervention. This review aims to identify and describe rehabilitation-specific registry systems with an emphasis on identifying outcomes that enable the assessment of vital areas and activities of daily living. Evidence acquisition: A systematic scoping review was conducted. A systematic search was conducted up to August 2022 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other search resources. Studies related to rehabilitation registries presented data on people with health problems that could limit their functioning were selected. The inclusion of studies/clinical registries was not limited by methodological design, year of publication, country, or language. The unit of analysis was rehabilitation registries. The measurement instruments used to assess the outcomes were explored to estimate the domain assessed from the vital areas related to functioning and disability as described by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The vital areas were classified according to activities of daily living (ADLs). Evidence synthesis: Seventy-one registries in rehabilitation were identified. The registries included a median of 3 (IQR 2-5) assessment instruments designed to assess the impact of different rehabilitation programs. In total, 137 different assessment scales or instruments were identified. Each rehabilitation registry assessed 6 (IQR 2-8) domains of the ICF, and 15.4% of registries assessed all domains. The most assessed domain was “Mobility” (89.7%), and the least assessed was “General Tasks and Demands” (25.6%). In addition, 92.3% of rehabilitation registries assessed basic ADLs, 76.9% advanced ADLs, and 71.8% instrumental ADLs. Conclusions: Although clinical registries do not claim to directly assess the impact of rehabilitation programs on people’s functioning according to the ICF framework, it was identified that a low percentage of them assessed the nine vital areas through different outcome assessment instruments. However, most rehabilitation registries directly or indirectly assess some basic, instrumental, and advanced ADLs. The findings of this review highlight the need to improve the design of clinical registries focused on assessing the impact of rehabilitation programs to assess people in all areas of their lives.

We read with a particular interest the study by Cuenca-Martínez et al,1 which found neural mobilization intervention having at least a moderate clinical benefit on pain intensity and disability in people with different musculoskeletal disorders and on mechanosensitivity in asymptomatic people. These conclusions were obtained by conducting an overview (ie, review of reviews). The authors performed 3 meta-meta-analyses (MMAs), one for each clinical outcome, in which the effect estimate was the standardized mean difference (SMD). Overviews are second-order evidence synthesis studies, as their unit of analysis is systematic reviews (SRs) with or without MA. These studies have challenges, including the potential overlap of primary studies included in SRs.2 When 1 or more primary studies are included in 2 or more SRs, the results and conclusions of the overview may be biased as study data might be counted more than one time, leading to a biased and over-precisely pooled effect size. The study by Cuenca-Martínez et al1 appears to be one such case.

Objective: The purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy. Methods: We searched Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. In addition, the records in PROSPERO and Epistemonikos and PEDro were consulted. Systematic reviews of different conditions, populations, and contexts—where the intervention to be evaluated is telerehabilitation by physical therapy—were included. The outcomes were clinical effectiveness depending on specific condition, functionality, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence, and safety. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by a reviewer with non-independent verification by a second reviewer. The findings are reported qualitatively in the tables and figures. Results: Fifty-three systematic reviews were included, of which 17 were assessed as having low risk of bias. Fifteen reviews were on cardiorespiratory rehabilitation, 14 on musculoskeletal conditions, and 13 on neurorehabilitation. The other 11 reviews addressed other types of conditions and rehabilitation. Thirteen reviews evaluated with low risk of bias showed results in favor of telerehabilitation versus in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation, while 17 reported no differences between the groups. Thirty-five reviews with unclear or high risk of bias showed mixed results. Conclusions: Despite the contradictory results, telerehabilitation in physical therapy could be comparable with in-person rehabilitation or better than no rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low-back pain, hip and knee replacement, and multiple sclerosis and also in the context of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. It is imperative to conduct better quality clinical trials and systematic reviews. Impact: Providing the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore yield better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.