↓ Skip to main content

A quality assessment of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation: what does the evidence tell us?

Overview of attention for article published in Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A quality assessment of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation: what does the evidence tell us?
Published in
Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità, January 2015
DOI 10.4415/ann_15_01_04
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rogante, Marco, Kairy, Dahlia, Giacomozzi, Claudia, Grigioni, Mauro

Abstract

To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation. The AMSTAR - Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews - checklist was used to appraise the evidence related to the systematic reviews. Among the 477 records initially identified, 10 systematic reviews matched the inclusion criteria. Fifty percent were of high quality; anyway the majority of them did not report the following aspects: i) analysis of the grey literature; ii) a list of the excluded studies and their characteristics; iii) the identification of possible source of bias and the assessment of its likehood; iv) an appropriate method to combine the findings of the included studies addressing the heterogeneity as well. From the main findings of the high-scored systematic reviews telerehabilitation resulted at least as effective as usual care: 1) in the short term treatment of mental health related to people affected by spinal cord injury; 2) in rural communities for treating patients affected by chronic conditions; 3) in treating common pathologies (mainly asthma) affecting children and adolescents. As for stroke, evidence is currently insufficient to reach conclusions about its effectiveness. As for costs, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that telerehabilitation is a cost-saving or cost-effective solution. In the authors' knowledge this is the first attempt to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation. This work also identified the main findings related to the high-scored systematic reviews; the analysis confirms that there is a mounting evidence concerning the effectiveness of telerehabilitation, at least for some pathologies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 119 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 23%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 23 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,165,221
of 4,981,955 outputs
Outputs from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#70
of 89 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,209
of 168,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annali dell'Istituto Superiore di Sanità
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,981,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 89 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,183 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.