CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 143Cancer survivorship and careMedical Practices and RehabilitationFrailty in Older Adults

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Collaborative Telerehabilitation on Functional Impairment and Pain Among Patients With Advanced-Stage Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Cheville, Andrea L., Moynihan, Timothy, Herrin, Jeph, Loprinzi, Charles, Kroenke, Kurt·2019·JAMA Oncology
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0011PMC PMC6512772
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Most patients with advanced-stage cancer develop impairment and pain-driven functional losses that jeopardize their independence. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether collaborative telerehabilitation and pharmacological pain management improve function, lessen pain, and reduce requirements for inpatient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Collaborative Care to Preserve Performance in Cancer (COPE) study was a 3-arm randomized clinical trial conducted at 3 academic medical centers within 1 health care system. Patient recruitment began in March 2013 and follow-up concluded in October 2016. Participants (N = 516) were low-level community or household ambulators with stage IIIC or IV solid or hematologic cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to the (1) control arm, (2) telerehabilitation arm, or (3) telerehabilitation with pharmacological pain management arm. All patients underwent automated function and pain monitoring with data reporting to their care teams. Participants in arms 2 and 3 received 6 months of centralized telerehabilitation provided by a physical therapist-physician team. Those in arm 3 also received nurse-coordinated pharmacological pain management. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Blinded assessment of function using the Activity Measure for Postacute Care computer adaptive test, pain interference and average intensity using the Brief Pain Inventory, and quality of life using the EQ-5D-3L was performed at baseline and months 3 and 6. Hospitalizations and discharges to postacute care facilities were recorded. RESULTS: The study included 516 participants (257 women and 259 men; mean [SD] age, 65.6 [11.1] years), with 172 randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Compared with the control group, the telerehabilitation arm 2 had improved function (difference, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.08-2.35; P = .03) and quality of life (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.004-0.071; P = .01), while both telerehabilitation arms 2 and 3 had reduced pain interference (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.09; P = .01 and arm 3, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.79 to -0.10; P = .01), and average intensity (arm 2, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.07; P = .02 and arm 3, -0.5; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.11; P = .006). Telerehabilitation was associated with higher odds of home discharge in arms 2 (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% CI, 1.3-14.3; P = .02) and 3 (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.1-12.4; P = .03) and fewer days in the hospital in arm 2 (difference, -3.9 days; 95% CI, -2.4 to -4.6; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Collaborative telerehabilitation modestly improved function and pain, while decreasing hospital length of stay and the requirement for postacute care, but these outcomes were not enhanced with the addition of pharmacological pain management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01721343.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0011

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cheville, A. L., Moynihan, T., Herrin, J., Loprinzi, C., & Kroenke, K.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Cheville, Andrea L.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2019-05-01
Volume
5
Issue
5
Pages
644
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0011
PMC
PMC6512772
OpenAlex
W2930121856
Cited by
143
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 4
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA163803)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
telerehabilitation, advanced cancer, functional disability, cancer pain, pain management, physiotherapy, quality of life, hospitalization, post-acute care, telemedicine, Brief Pain Inventory, EQ-5D-3L, hematologic cancer
MeSH terms
Telerehabilitation, Cancer Pain, Aged, Analgesics, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Hematologic Neoplasms, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review