Previously submitted to: JMIR Formative Research (no longer under consideration since Apr 25, 2023)
Date Submitted: Jan 17, 2022
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 3, 2022 - Feb 28, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Relative Efficacy of Virtual and In-Office Conservative Care for Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Propensity Score Matching Comparison Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Propensity Score Matching is a statistical technique which allows an observational study to control for differences in the study and comparison group, without the difficulty of establishing a long-term randomized trial. This method is very appropriate to the evolving field of telemedicine, due to the fast pace at which it is proceeding and the limitations on data imposed by its relatively recent popularization. These limitations prevent a randomized controlled trial from being applied to most questions, creating a strong case for the use of Propensity Score Matching.
Objective:
To evaluate the relative efficacy of digital and in-person physical therapy in a single clinic while controlling for the different patient circumstances that may affect the choice of treatment option.
Methods:
We used propensity score matching to construct a cohort of 890 patients split evenly between digital and onsite patients. We matched patients on injury location, instance of injury (first, second, third, etc.), reported pain level on presentation, age, presence or absence of prior treatment attempts, gender, and BMI (for weight-bearing injury locations only). We evaluated the matched cohorts in upper and lower body groups for differences in patient reported pain improvement, visit completion, avoidance of surgeries, and patient reported injury resolution.
Results:
We analyzed that data using a two-one-sided T-test. We found that upper body digital patients perform equivalent to within 0.5 standard deviations or superior to in-person patients on all metrics (p < 0.05 for all metrics). Lower body digital and in-person patients performed within 0.5 standard deviations on visit completion, avoidance of surgeries, and reported injury resolution. (p <0.05.) Results for pain improvement were inconclusive, with the 95% confidence range indicating a possibility of either equivalent performance (p = 0.48) or inferior performance for digital patients (p = 0.52).
Conclusions:
The date indicates an equivalent or superior performance for remote treatment of upper body injuries, with data suggesting improved visit completion improves other metrics more than any disadvantages of digital treatment can reduce them. Data regarding lower body injuries is inconclusive, due to high varied level of pain reduction experienced by patients. In light of other data on lower body patients, this suggests that further research may be able to assess which lower body injuries can and cannot be successfully treated via remote physical therapy.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.