Assessment of Research Quality of Telehealth Trials in Pain Management: A Meta‐Analysis
Abstract
Although telehealth‐based pain management research has grown over the last decade, it is difficult to determine the state of the research because of methodological differences and variability in quality among existing studies. In a previous systematic review, we outlined these differences and preliminarily explored the promise of telehealth for pain intervention. We completed a PRISMA compliant meta‐analysis of telehealth pain management research to more precisely describe the state of the research and to uncover gaps in the existing literature that highlight directions for future research. We identified 10 relevant studies completed between 2000 and 2011 including 3 noninferiority and 7 superiority studies. Meta‐analysis revealed an overall benefit of telehealth interventions over control conditions and equivalence with in‐person intervention. However, some of the reviewed studies found no benefit for telehealth over control conditions. Some methodological concerns among the examined research included poor research quality, small sample sizes, and the examination of telehealth pain interventions without proven efficacy for in‐person treatment. Recommendations for future studies are reviewed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
An increasing number of studies on Internet-based interventions, many based on CBT (iCBT), indicate their efficacy in supporting use of constructive self-management strategies in individuals living with chronic illness.
“An increasing number of studies on Internet-based interventions, many based on CBT (iCBT), indicate their efficacy in supporting use of constructive self-management strategies in individuals living with chronic illness [12-15].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 19
- Authors
- McGeary, D. D., McGeary, C. A., Gatchel, R. J., Allison, S., & Hersh, A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
- The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
- Corresponding author
- McGeary, Donald D.
- Venue
- Pain Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-09-27
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 422-431
- ISSN
- 1530-7085 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-2500
- OpenAlex
- W1964968092
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
- Keywords
- telemedicine, pain management, research quality, methodological quality, telehealth intervention, superiority trials, sample size, research gaps
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Pain, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Telemedicine, Biomedical Research, 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