MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417442144 · doi:10.63144/ijt.2025.6725

Effect of Home-based Telerehabilitation on Balance, Functional Mobility, and Quality of Life in Persons with Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4417442144 on OpenAlexaff
Arnold Fredrick D’Souza, Akhila Jagadish, Jennifer D’souza, Dorcas B.C. Gandhi, Dushyanth Babu Jasti, Manikandan Natarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Telerehabilitation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelerehabilitationQuality of life (healthcare)Balance (ability)Quality (philosophy)Activities of daily livingRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Persons with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) require ongoing rehabilitation to maintain independence, but traditional center-based and unsupervised home programs have limitations in accessibility and adherence. Home-based telerehabilitation (TR) offers a promising alternative by enabling remote delivery of exercise interventions. Objective: To evaluate the effect of home-based TR on balance, functional mobility, and quality of life in PwPD. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, OvidSP, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and PEDro databases. Interventional studies on exercise-centric home-based TR for PwPD with either balance, functional mobility, or quality of life as outcomes were included. Results: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review, of which 13 were eligible for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed small but significant improvements in balance (SMD = 0.25; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.45; p = 0.02). and functional mobility (SMD = -0.28; 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.05; p = 0.02). However, no significant effect was observed for quality of life (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.09; p = 0.35). Conclusion: Home-based TR is effective for improving balance and functional mobility in PwPD, although, its effect on quality of life is unclear which warrants further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.032
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of TelerehabilitationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207