Some remote spine examination components showed reliability, while posture inspection performed poorly
A review comparing live telehealth with in-person assessment found support for selected examination components, with an important exception for postural inspection.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
Several elements of a live remote spine examination showed acceptable reliability or validity in the reviewed studies, including pain localization and range of motion. Postural inspection had poor reliability. These findings support examining individual components on their own merits; they do not establish that an entire remote examination performs equally well across all patients or purposes.
Study quality varied, and the abstract supplies no numerical reliability or validity estimates. It also gives little participant information, limiting assessment of where the findings apply.
What qualified for inclusion
The review required examinations performed in real time, an in-person comparison, and reliability or validity data. Its question concerned the performance of individual examination components, rather than whether remote care improved symptoms or recovery.
Keep the components separate
The abstract lists support for several movement, strength and symptom-localization tests, alongside poor reliability for postural inspection. This mixed pattern matters: a favorable result for a particular test cannot validate every part of a remote examination.
The original publication
Reliability and Validity of Telehealth Spinal Examination Components: A Systematic Review.
Bucki FM, Bensel VA, Wallert CH et al.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther · 2025
- PubMed ID
- 40985920
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.