Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37626710›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2023

Efficacy of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Post-COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Erika Meléndez-Oliva, Oliver Martínez-Pozas, Juan Nicolás Cuenca-Zaldívar, Jorge Hugo Villafañe, Laura Jiménez-Ortega, Eleuterio A Sánchez-Romero

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Erika Meléndez-OlivaDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Sport Sciences, European University of Valencia, Pg. de l'Albereda, 7, 46010 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9366-1614
Oliver Martínez-PozasInterdisciplinary Group on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4804-550X
Juan Nicolás Cuenca-ZaldívarInterdisciplinary Group on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain.
Jorge Hugo VillafañeIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, 20148 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3239-7626
Laura Jiménez-OrtegaDepartment of Psychobiology and Behavioral Sciences Methods, Faculty of Odontology, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8002-5563
Eleuterio A Sánchez-RomeroInterdisciplinary Group on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0254-6501
Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversidad Europea de Madrid · ESUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis examines how pulmonary rehabilitation impacts in patients suffering from subacute and long COVID-19 infections, gauging enhancements in of dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, psychological state (anxiety and depression), and fatigue.

methodsThree electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for full-text articles published from inception to January 2023. Randomized, quasi-experimental, and observational studies were included, with adults diagnosed with subacute or long COVID-19 who received pulmonary rehabilitation as intervention. Outcomes related to dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, fatigue, and psychological status were included. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials and Risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention. The review was registered before starting in PROSPERO (CRD: 42022373075).

resultsThirty-four studies were included, involving 1970 patients with subacute and long COVID-19. The meta-analysis demonstrated moderate to large effects on dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, and depressive symptoms compared to usual care intervention. No significant differences were found in fatigue compared to usual care, nor in anxiety levels after pulmonary rehabilitation intervention.

conclusionsPulmonary rehabilitation has the potential to improve health outcomes in patients with subacute and long COVID-19. However, due to the high risk of bias of included studies, conclusions should be taken with caution.

Indexed as

COVID-19exercisepulmonary rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID37626710
PMCPMC10452542
OpenAlexW4385637673

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.