Benefits of post-stroke telerehabilitation
Le résumé fourni par la source
Introduction: Stroke was responsible for 139.4 million cases of global disability in 2019, many of which require rehabilitation. Telerehabilitation has emerged as a promising remote therapy aimed at improving the deficits resulting from stroke. Objective: To compare the benefits of telerehabilitation with the usual methods of rehabilitation in post-stroke patients. Methodology: In April 2021, a literature review including systematic reviews of studies in humans, available in full and published in the last 5 years was executed on MedLine using the descriptors “stroke”, “telerehabilitation” and their MeSH variations. Results: The first selected article revealed that post-stroke telerehabilitation resulted in less expenses and was associated with comparable improvements to the standard treatment group in the recovery of motor deficits, cortical dysfunction and depression. The second review concluded that telerehabilitation was equal to or greater than usual rehabilitation for improvements in daily living and psychological status and restoration of quality of life and motor performance. The third study found that telerehabilitation achieved similar results to face-to-face therapy and usual care on improving daily life. The fourth article reinforced the benefits of telerehabilitation on several outcomes, although current evidence is limited. Conclusion: Telerehabilitation can be an adequate alternative to the care of post-stroke patients, however, further studies are needed to establish the benefits it provides.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Benefits of post-stroke telerehabilitation
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2021
- Éditeur
- Zeppelini Editorial e Comunicação
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.