ArticleMicroorganisms2021
Clinical and Functional Predictors of Response to a Comprehensive Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Severe Post-COVID-19 Patients.
Article in Microorganisms, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05736939 (Gender Differences in the Recovery Rate Following a Hybrid Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme in Patients With Long COVID-19 Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Gender Differences in the Recovery Rate Following a Hybrid Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme in Patients With Long COVID-19 Syndrome
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Severe-COVID-19 Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation: A Comprehensive Study on Patient Features and Recovery Dynamics in Correlation with Workout Intensity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Systemic Effects: New Clues.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- Effects of Physiotherapy on Rehabilitation and Quality of Life in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Review of Findings from Key Studies Published 2020-2022.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Review
- Rehabilitation and COVID-19: update of the rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field as of December 31st, 2021.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) following severe and very severe COVID-19 infection is known to be effective, according to typical assessments. However, not all patients benefit from PR to the same extent. This analysis aimed to identify the impact of different factors on PR outcomes in post-COVID-19 patients.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 184 post-COVID-19 patients. The achievement of the predicted reference walking distance (6 min walking distance (6-MWD)) served as a parameter with which to identify responders and non-responders to PR. Several parameters (e.g., Functional Independent Measurement (FIM); pulmonary function testing (Forced Vital Capacity, FVC); 6MWD) were assessed in order to estimate their impact on PR success. Logistic regression models and classification and regression trees were used for multivariate analysis.
resultsA total of 94 patients (51%) reached their reference 6MWD by the end of PR. FVC (0.95 (0.93-0.97)), 6MWD at admission (0.99 (0.99-1.00)), and FIM motoric (0.96 (0.93-0.99)) correlated with the risk not reaching the reference distance. The most important variable was the 6MWD at admission. Classification and regression tree identified 6MWD ≥ 130 m at admission and FVC predicted of >83% as the strongest predictor for reaching predicted 6-MWD.
conclusionPost-COVID-19 patients with lower 6MWD, lower motoric FIM scores and lower FVC at admission have a high risk of not reaching their target values of physical performance despite intensive rehabilitation. As well as identifying them, it is of utmost importance to develop optimal PR concepts for these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.