ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Functional Capacity in Patients Who Recovered from Mild COVID-19 with Exertional Dyspnea.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Light at the end of the tunnel? Follow-up of cardiopulmonary function in children with post-COVID-19.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Long-Term Respiratory Outcomes in Pediatric Patients Following COVID-19 Infection and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C).Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Physical exercise-related manifestations of long COVID: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2024Review
- Spontaneous physical functional recovery after hospitalization for COVID-19: insights from a 1 month follow-up and a model to predict poor trajectory.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost mild COVID-19 dyspnea is poorly understood. We assessed physiologic limitations in these patients.
methodsPatients with post mild COVID-19 dyspnea (group A) were compared (pulmonary function tests, 6-min walk test (6MWT), echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET)) to post moderate/severe COVID-19 (group B) and to CPET and spirometry of patients with unexplained dyspnea (group C).
resultsThe study included 36 patients (13 in A, 9 in B and 14 in C). Diffusion capacity was lower in group B compared to group A (64 ± 8 vs. 85 ± 9% predicted,
conclusionsPatients with post mild COVID-19 dyspnea had normal CPET, similar to patients with unexplained dyspnea. Other mechanisms should be investigated and the added value of CPET to patients with post mild COVID-19 dyspnea is questionable.
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.