ABSTRACT
Smartphones and their associated applications are used frequently by patients and clinicians alike. Despite the technology being widely accessible, their use to aid in rehabilitation is yet to be adopted. The SARS CoV-2 pandemic has presented an opportunity to expedite their integration given the difficulty patients currently have in accessing healthcare. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic literature review on the use of smartphone rehabilitation applications compared to standard physiotherapy for back pain. We conducted a search of Medline/Pubmed and google databases using the search terms [APP] AND [[Orthopaedic] OR [Neurosurgery]], following the PRISMA guidelines. All prospective studies investigating rehabilitation applications for back pain or following spine surgery were included. A total of nine studies met the inclusion criteria which investigated 7636 patients, of which 92.4% were allocated to the interventional group (n = 7055/7636) with a follow up of 4 weeks to 6 months. All except one study reported on patients experiencing back pain on average for 19.6 ± 11.6 months. The VAS-pain score was presented in all studies without significance between the interventional and control group (p = 0.399 before and p = 0.277 after intervention). Only one research group found significantly higher improvement in PROMs for the application group, whereas the remaining showed similar results compared to the control group. Using application-based rehabilitation programs provides an easily accessible alternative or substitute to traditional physiotherapy for patients with back pain. Given that smartphones are so prevalent in activities in our daily lives, this will enhance and improve rehabilitation if patients are self-dedicated and compliant.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Vitamin D status has been implicated in COVID-19 disease. The objective of the COVID-VIT-D trial was to investigate if an oral bolus of cholecalciferol (100,000 IU) administered at hospital admission influences the outcomes of moderate-severe COVID-19 disease. In the same cohort, the association between baseline serum calcidiol levels with the same outcomes was also analysed. METHODS: The COVID-VIT-D is a multicentre, international, randomised, open label, clinical trial conducted throughout 1 year. Patients older than 18 years with moderate-severe COVID-19 disease requiring hospitalisation were included. At admission, patients were randomised 1:1 to receive a single oral bolus of cholecalciferol (n=274) or nothing (n=269). Patients were followed from admission to discharge or death. Length of hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality were assessed. RESULTS: In the randomised trial, comorbidities, biomarkers, symptoms and drugs used did not differ between groups. Median serum calcidiol in the cholecalciferol and control groups were 17.0 vs. 16.1 ng/mL at admission and 29.0 vs. 16.4 ng/mL at discharge, respectively. The median length of hospitalisation (10.0 [95%CI 9.0-10.5] vs. 9.5 [95%CI 9.0-10.5] days), admission to ICU (17.2% [95%CI 13.0-22.3] vs. 16.4% [95%CI 12.3-21.4]) and death rate (8.0% [95%CI 5.2-12.1] vs. 5.6% [95%CI 3.3-9.2]) did not differ between the cholecalciferol and control group. In the cohort analyses, the highest serum calcidiol category at admission (>25ng/mL) was associated with lower percentage of pulmonary involvement and better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The randomised clinical trial showed the administration of an oral bolus of 100,000 IU of cholecalciferol at hospital admission did not improve the outcomes of the COVID-19 disease. A cohort analysis showed that serum calcidiol at hospital admission was associated with outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: COVID-VIT-D trial was authorised by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health products (AEMPS) and registered in European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT 2020-002274-28) and in ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04552951 ).