Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36249181›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2022

Do patients with and survivors of COVID-19 benefit from telerehabilitation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Jiapeng Huang, Ye Fan, Kehong Zhao, Chunlan Yang, Ziqi Zhao, Yin Chen, Jiaen Yang, Tingting Wang, Yun Qu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jiapeng HuangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ye FanSecond Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Kehong ZhaoDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Chunlan YangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ziqi ZhaoDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yin ChenDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jiaen YangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Tingting WangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yun QuDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
West China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNSichuan University · CNGuangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) significantly impacts physical, psychological, and social functioning and reduces quality of life, which may persist for at least 6 months. Given the fact that COVID-19 is a highly infectious disease and therefore healthcare facilities may be sources of contagion, new methods avoiding face-to-face contact between healthcare workers and patients are urgently needed. Telerehabilitation is the provision of rehabilitation services to patients at a distance Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline ( Results: Seven randomized controlled trials with eight comparisons were included and all of them were used for meta-analysis. The meta-analyses of absolute values showed the superiority of telerehabilitation over no treatment or usual care for dyspnea (Borg scale: mean difference = -1.88, -2.37 to -1.39; Multidimensional dyspnea-12: mean difference = -3.70, -5.93 to -1.48), limb muscle strength (mean difference = 3.29; 2.12 to 4.47), ambulation capacity (standardized mean difference = 0.88; 0.62 to 1.14), and depression (mean difference = -5.68; -8.62 to -2.74). Significant improvement in these variables persisted in the meta-analyses of change scores. No significant difference was found in anxiety and quality of life. No severe adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. Conclusions: Moderate- to very low-quality evidence demonstrates that telerehabilitation may be an effective and safe solution for patients with and survivors of COVID-19 in dyspnea, lower limb muscle strength, ambulation capacity, and depression. Further well-designed studies are required to evaluate the long-term effects, cost-effectiveness, and satisfaction in larger samples.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelerehabilitationDyspneaHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsSurvivorsCOVID-19eHealthmeta-analysisphysical functionpsychological functiontelemedicinetelerehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID36249181
PMCPMC9555811
OpenAlexW4297546148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.