TELEREHABILITATION demonstrated no significant advantage over home-based exercise in improving physical function, balance, or quality of life among people with multiple sclerosis, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis of five randomised controlled trials.
The findings suggested comparable outcomes between the two rehabilitation approaches, although limited evidence and inconsistent reporting highlighted the need for further investigation.
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of telerehabilitation and home-based exercise among people with multiple sclerosis.
Physical activity is important for maintaining health and quality of life in this population, although individuals with multiple sclerosis are generally less physically active than the wider population.
Telerehabilitation has increasingly been used to deliver rehabilitation interventions, but direct comparisons with home-based exercise have remained limited.
Researchers systematically searched seven electronic databases from inception to February 2026, identifying five randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria.
Eligible studies compared telerehabilitation with home-based exercise, assessing physical function and balance using clinical performance tests and quality of life through validated questionnaires.
Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment.
The meta-analysis used a random-effects model with restricted maximum-likelihood estimation to evaluate differences between rehabilitation approaches.
No statistically significant difference was identified for physical function (mean difference: −0.09; 95% CI: −0.58–0.39; p=0.709).
Similarly, balance outcomes did not differ significantly between telerehabilitation and home-based exercise (mean difference: −1.92; 95% CI: −4.58–0.74; p=0.158).
Quality of life outcomes were also comparable (standardised mean difference: 0.15; 95% CI: −0.18–0.48; p=0.367).
These findings indicated that telerehabilitation did not demonstrate superior effectiveness across any of the three evaluated outcomes.
Adherence data were limited, with only two studies reporting comparative outcomes. Neither identified significant differences in adherence between intervention groups.
Although telerehabilitation and home-based exercise demonstrated no statistically significant differences, researchers cautioned against drawing definitive conclusions from the available evidence.
The inclusion of only five trials, alongside inconsistent reporting of adherence, limited the strength of the findings.
Importantly, the absence of statistically significant differences did not establish that the interventions were equivalent in effectiveness.
The researchers concluded that additional high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to confirm these findings and further clarify the comparative effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches for people with multiple sclerosis.
Reference
ShahAli S et al. Comparing telerehabilitation and home-based exercise for improving physical function, balance, and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurology. 2026.
Featured image: OnPoint/peopleimages.com on Adobe Stock
Each article is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 License.
