Skip to main content

Table 2 Studies on stroke and telerehabilitation

From: Physical exercise intervention via telerehabilitation in patients with neurological disorders: a narrative literature review

Author Year Intervention Outcomes of 1st and 2nd assessment Setting Results
Linder et al. 2015 Telerehabilitasyon group (n:51)
Hand Mentor Pro robotic assisted wrist and finger active assistive range of motion
Home exercise group (n:48)
Active, active-assisted, and functional range of motion exercises
SIS
CES–D
In-office visit There was significant difference between groups on hand function (p < 0.05)
Chumbler et al. 2015 Telerehabilitasyon group (STeleR) (n:25)
Consisted of telephone and message-based function exercises and adaptive techniques for the daily life
Conventional Care (n:23)
Conventional rehabilitation care was applied to this group
FES
SSPS-CS
Remotely STeleR group was better on satisfaction (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences on FES (p > 0.05)
Chen et al. 2017 Telerehabilitasyon group (n:26)
Live video-conferencing was conducted by physiotherapist
Conventional Physiotherapy Group(n:25)
Conventional face-to-face physiotherapy was applied
mBI
BBS
In-office visit There was no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05)
Chen et al. 2020 Home-Based Telerehabilitasyon (n:22)
Telerehabilitation based home exercise program was applied with the assistance of physiotherapist
Conventional Physiotherapy (n:22)
Consists of face-to-face physiotherapy sessions
FMA
BI
In-office visit Telerehabilitation group was better in terms of hand function (p < 0.05)
Wu et al. 2020 Intervention Group (n:32)
Multi-disciplinary care model was applied via the teleconferencing
Control Group (n:32)
Extremity position, transfer activities, range of motion exercises was prescribed
FMA
BBS
6MWT
mBI
SSQoL
In-office visit Telerehabilitation group was significantly higher score on Fugl-Meyer Motor Function Assessment, Berg Balance Scale ve Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (p < 0.05)
Asano et al. 2021 Telerehabilitation-Based Physiotherapy (n:50) Standardized telerehabilitation, including physiotherapy and ergotherapy was carried out
Conventional Care Group (n:48) Standard hospital care was conducted
LLFDI
SF-36
TFMWT
2MWT
mBI
In-office visit There was no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05)
  1. SIS Stroke Impact Scale, CES-D Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, FES Falls Efficacy Scale, T25FW Timed 25-Foot Walk Test, mBI Modified Barthel Index, BBS Berg Balance Score, FMA Fugl-Meyer Assessment, BI Barthel Index, 6MWT Six-minute walk test, SF-36 Short Form 36, TFMWT Timed Five-Meter Walk Test, 2MWT 2 Minutes Walk Test, SSPS-CS Stroke-Specific Patient Satisfaction with Care Scale, SSQoL Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale, LLFDI Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument