Introduction: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of telerehabilitation for patients after hip fracture surgery through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched in August 2022. The primary outcomes were mobility outcomes, activities of daily living (ADL) outcomes, and all adverse events, whereas the secondary outcomes were pain, health-related quality of life, and fall efficacy scale score. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials were eligible for this study. The evidence regarding the effect of telerehabilitation on mobility outcomes (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.39 to 0.48) and all adverse events (risk ratio: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.62 to 2.21) was very uncertain. A clinically irrelevant but significant mean difference (MD) in ADL outcomes was found (MD: 4.82, 95% CI: 2.63 to 7.01). Telerehabilitation may result in a slight increase in fall efficacy scale score (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: −0.02 to 0.54) and little to no difference in pain (MD: −1.0, 95% CI: −18.31 to 16.31). Conclusions: The efficacy of telerehabilitation for patients after hip fracture surgery was uncertain with respect to the mobility outcomes, all adverse events, and pain, with no clinically meaningful differences in ADL outcomes. Telerehabilitation may be necessary to be considered for patients after hip fracture surgery to improve their confidence in their ability to perform daily activities without falling. Therefore, medical staff may consider telerehabilitation for hip fractures.

Background: Malpositioning of the acetabular cup during total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to complications. Robotic surgery and navigation techniques aim to address this issue, but there is limited evidence regarding which method can achieve better clinical outcomes. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of various navigation methods. Methods: This NMA of prospective randomized controlled trials compared robot-assisted systems (RAS), computer-assisted navigation systems (CAS), augmented reality-based portable navigation (AR), patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), portable accelerometer-based navigation (PN), and conventional methods (C) for THA procedures. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Clinical Trials Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. databases. The primary outcomes included revision surgery and postoperative clinical scores, and the secondary outcomes encompassed cup placement accuracy, acetabular cup placement outliers from the Lewinnek safe zone, surgical time, and complications. We used a Bayesian random-effects NMA, and confidence of evidence was assessed using confidence in NMA. Results: We identified 45 studies including 2,122 patients. We did not find large differences in revision surgery, clinical outcome scores, cup inclination, or anteversion angle accuracy among the modalities. AR, CAS, and PSI exhibited a lower risk of outliers from safe zones than C. In addition, RAS and CAS had a longer surgical time than C. Conclusions: Robotic and navigation tools did not reduce the revision risk or enhance clinical outcomes. AR, CAS, PSI, and PN may decrease the risk of cup placement outliers in safe zones. However, the cup placement accuracy was equivalent, and the surgical time may be longer in RAS and CAS than in C. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting and methodological qualities in systematic reviews (SRs) of rehabilitation journals following updating to the use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Methods: SRs with pairwise meta-analyses on the effects of health interventions were selected, which were published in rehabilitation journals in 2020, 2021, and 2022 using MEDLINE (PubMed). Exposure was defined as reporting use of the PRISMA 2020 statement. A comparison group consisted of SRs that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement. The adherence of the PRISMA 2020 items, PRISMA 2020 for abstracts, and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 items were evaluated. Results: Thirteen thousand, three hundred eighty-one articles were identified after conducting a search on April 2, 2023. The study included 100 articles each that used and those that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement. Of 41 items in the PRISMA 2020 statement, 48.8% (20/41) adhered to ≥80% of each item for those that used the PRISMA 2020 statement and 41.5% (17/41) in those that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement did not lead to any major improvement, and only a slight improvement of 9.8% (4/41) was observed when compared with those that did not use the PRISMA 2020 statement. Similarly, no item improved in the PRISMA 2020 for abstracts, and only 5.6% (1/18) improved in the AMSTAR 2 items. Conclusion: This study showed that reporting use of the PRISMA 2020 statement did not result in any major improvements; however, only a slight improvement was observed in the reporting and methodological qualities of SRs in rehabilitation journals. Researchers should adhere to each item in the PRISMA 2020 statement in SRs published in rehabilitation journals. Impact: The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in rehabilitation journals is insufficient. It is important to improve the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in rehabilitation journals. It is recommended that researchers not only declare their reporting use of the PRISMA 2020 statement, but also adhere to each item correctly.