Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 226

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity and reliability of Internet-based physiotherapy assessment for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review

Mani, Suresh, Sharma, Shobha, Omar, Baharudin, Paungmali, Aatit, Joseph, Leonard·2017·Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this review is to systematically explore and summarise the validity and reliability of telerehabilitation (TR)-based physiotherapy assessment for musculoskeletal disorders. Method: A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted using a number of electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL, published between January 2000 and May 2015. The studies examined the validity, inter- and intra-rater reliabilities of TR-based physiotherapy assessment for musculoskeletal conditions were included. Two independent reviewers used the Quality Appraisal Tool for studies of diagnostic Reliability (QAREL) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool to assess the methodological quality of reliability and validity studies respectively. Results: A total of 898 hits were achieved, of which 11 articles based on inclusion criteria were reviewed. Nine studies explored the concurrent validity, inter- and intra-rater reliabilities, while two studies examined only the concurrent validity. Reviewed studies were moderate to good in methodological quality. The physiotherapy assessments such as pain, swelling, range of motion, muscle strength, balance, gait and functional assessment demonstrated good concurrent validity. However, the reported concurrent validity of lumbar spine posture, special orthopaedic tests, neurodynamic tests and scar assessments ranged from low to moderate. Conclusion: TR-based physiotherapy assessment was technically feasible with overall good concurrent validity and excellent reliability, except for lumbar spine posture, orthopaedic special tests, neurodynamic testa and scar assessment.

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 · 10.1177/1357633x16642369

Cites

4 of 4 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

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 4 references

Cited by

See all 226

Metadata

Authors
Mani, S., Sharma, S., Omar, B., Paungmali, A., & Joseph, L.
Venue
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Published
2016-03-31
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
379-391
ISSN
  • 1357-633X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1109
OpenAlex
W2334032738
Cited by
226
References
4
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validity and reliability of Internet-based physiotherapy assessment for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1357633x16642369
The paper
Mani, S., Sharma, S., Omar, B., Paungmali, A., & Joseph, L. (2017). Validity and reliability of Internet-based physiotherapy assessment for musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633x16642369

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.