ABSTRACT
Background: Musculoskeletal conditions such as spinal pain and osteoarthritis are among the leading causes of years lived with disability worldwide. With the COVID-19 pandemic forcing many healthcare providers to change the way in which care for chronic conditions is delivered, telehealth is an alternative to face-to-face consultations that can be used for both assessment and provision of therapy and support. Objectives: To identify, appraise and synthesise findings from all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared telehealth to face-to-face consultations for patients with any type of musculoskeletal condition. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence related to all outcomes. We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL), clinical trial registries and citing-cited references of included studies. Results: Five RCTs were includable: one in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, one in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip in preparation for a total joint arthroscopy and three after total knee replacement. Telehealth was conducted by video in four trials and by phone in one. A total of 402 participants were analysed across the five trials. There were no significant differences in pain outcomes (WOMAC) between telehealth and face-to-face therapy immediate post-intervention (mean difference (MD): 0.12 (95% CI −2.3 to 2.6, p =.92) or two months post-intervention (MD): 1.2, (95% CI: −2.7 to 5.1, p =.55). Similarly, outcomes related to function, quality of life and satisfaction were comparable between the two modes of delivery immediate post-intervention, with no significant differences reported. Conclusion: There is limited low quality evidence that there is no significant differences between telehealth-based delivery of rehabilitation to patients with osteoarthritis or following knee surgery and face-to-face therapy for pain, function, quality of life and satisfaction. These findings should be should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of included studies and small sample size. © 2023 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
ABSTRACT
Background: Knowing the prevalence of true asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases is critical for designing mitigation measures against the pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on asymptomatic cases and transmission rates. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC for primary studies on asymptomatic prevalence in which (1) the sample frame includes at-risk populations, and;(2) follow-up was sufficient to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed-effects and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies. Results: We screened 2,454 articles and included 13 low risk-of-bias studies from seven countries that tested 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were positive and 111 asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction test. The asymptomatic proportion ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effects) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%) overall and higher in aged care (20%;95% CI 14% to 27%) than in non-aged care (16%;95% CI 13% to 20%). The relative risk (RR) of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than that for symptomatic transmission (combined RR 0.58;95% CI 0.34 to 0.99, p = 0.047). Conclusions: Our one-in-six estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates is lower than those of many highly publicized studies but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in subpopulations such as children, to better understand how asymptomatic cases contribute to the pandemic.