Objective: Telerehabilitation is an option that should be adapted as soon as possible to face the crisis caused by coronavirus disease 2019. An umbrella and mapping review with meta–meta-analysis (MMA) of the available scientific evidence was performed to determine whether telerehabilitation could be an effective alternative to conventional rehabilitation in physical therapist practice. Methods: A systematic review of reviews and a synthesis of the findings of all systematic evidence published to date with a visual map and a meta–meta-analysis (MMA) were performed. A systematic search was realized in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers performed a data analysis and assessed the quality of the included reviews, assessing the risk of bias using ROBIS. Results: Twenty-nine articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected and divided according to the type of patient targeted for rehabilitation (patients with cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neurological conditions). The MMA regarding physical function between telerehabilitation and usual care rehabilitation did not reveal a statistically significant difference for patients with cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. For patients with neurological conditions, the MMA revealed a statistically significant but negligible effect size in 6 reviews in favor of telerehabilitation (standardized mean difference = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.03–0.34). Conclusion: The results of the present review showed that telerehabilitation offers positive clinical results, even comparable to conventional face-to-face rehabilitation approaches. Impact: The advantages of lower cost and less interference by the rehabilitation processes in patients’ daily life could justify implementing telerehabilitation in clinical settings in the coronavirus disease 2019 era.

Introduction: In recent years, pain neuroscience education (PNE) has been the focus of extensive research in the scientific literature in the field of physical therapy, but the results obtained are controversial and its clinical application remains unclear. The main aim of this umbrella review was to assess the effectiveness of PNE in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP).Methods: We searched systematically in PubMed (Medline), PEDro, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. Methodological quality was analyzed using AMSTAR-2 scale and overlapping analysis using GROOVE tool.Results: 16 systematic reviews were included. A qualitative synthesis was performed for the following sets of patients with CMP: overall CMP, chronic spinal pain, patients with fibromyalgia and patients with osteoarthritis. In general terms, it seems that the addition of the PNE-based intervention to other treatments, mostly exercise-based interventions although we might refer to it in terms of a multimodal approach, leads to greater clinical improvements than the multimodal approach alone. We have found this especially in the reduction of the influence of psychosocial variables. However, it seems that studies testing the effectiveness of PNE in isolation, systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis did not show statistically significant improvements overall in terms of pain intensity, disability levels or psychosocial variables.Discussion: There is a great heterogeneity in the results obtained and the PNE protocols used, a critically low quality in the reviews included and a very high overlap, so there is a need to improve the studies in this field before clinical application.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022355634).

The aim of the present study was to explore the pain modulation effects of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) of specific neck therapeutic exercises both locally, in the cervical region, and remotely. A single-blind, placebo clinical trial was designed. A total of 30 patients with chronic neck pain (CNP) were randomly assigned to an AO group, MI group, or placebo observation (PO) group. Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs) of C2/C3, trapezius muscles, and epicondyle were the main outcome variables. Secondary outcomes included heart rate measurement. Statistically significant differences were observed in PPTs of the cervical region in the AO and MI groups between the preintervention and first postintervention assessment. Significant differences were found in the AO group in the epicondyle between the preintervention, first and second post-intervention assessments. Regarding heart rate response, differences were found in the AO and MI groups between the preintervention and average intervention measurements. AO and MI induce immediate pain modulation in the cervical region and AO also induces remote hypoalgesia. OA appears to lead to greater pain modulation as well as a greater heart rate response, however, both should be clinically considered in patients with CNP.