Which Remote Rehabilitation Interventions Work Best for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain and Depression? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote rehabilitation interventions for people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression. DESIGN: A systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS MEDLINE, PSYNDEX, and PsycINFO databases from inception to May 2023. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of remote rehabilitation interventions in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used Bayesian random-effects models for the NMA. Effect estimates were comparisons between rehabilitation interventions and waitlist. We performed a sensitivity analysis based on bias in the randomization process, large trials (>100 patients per arm) and musculoskeletal condition. RESULTS: Fifty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 10 278 participants (median sample size: 137; interquartile range [IQR]: 77–236) were included. Interactive voice response cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.66, 95% credible interval [CrI] -1.17 to -0.16), CBT in person (SMD -0.50, 95% CrI -0.97 to -0.04), and mobile app CBT plus exercise (SMD -0.37, 95% CrI -0.69 to -0.02) were superior to waitlist at 12-week follow-up for reducing pain (> 98% probability of superiority). For depression outcomes, Internet-delivered CBT and telecare were superior to waitlist at 12-week follow-up (SMD -0.51, 95% CrI -0.87 to -0.13) (> 99% probability of superiority). For pain outcomes, the certainty of evidence ranged from low to moderate. For depression outcomes, the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The proportion of dropouts attributed to adverse events was unclear. No intervention was associated with higher odds of dropout. CONCLUSION: Interactive voice response CBT and mobile app CBT plus exercise showed similar treatment effects with in-person CBT on pain reduction among people living with chronic musculoskeletal pain and depression had over 98% probability of superiority than waitlist control at 12-week follow-up. Internet-delivered CBT and telecare had over 99% probability of superiority than waitlist control for improving depression outcomes at 12-week follow-up. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(6):361-376. Epub 26 February 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12216
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".