ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of Pulmonary Functions After Induction of Stress Between Post-COVID and Healthy Adults.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Medium- and Long-Term Respiratory and Functional Sequelae in Young Adults Post-COVID-19.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Sex-Linked Differences in Pulmonary Functions of COVID-19 Patients After a Six-Minute Walk Test.Cureus · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the emergence of COVID in 2019, it has spread worldwide. COVID has affected all the systems of the human body. The present research aimed to assess the effects of COVID-19 on the pulmonary system after stress induction. Healthy and affected individuals between the age of 18 and 40 years were made to perform the 6-minute walk test and their pulmonary functions were compared before and after the stressor. Individuals who were three months post-COVID-19 infection were included as cases. Healthy individuals with no history of COVID were included as controls. The pulmonary functions were performed and noted both at baseline and after the 6-minute walk test. The forced expiratory flow 25 (FEF 25) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) showed statistical significance between both groups (p=0.033 and p=0.007, respectively). FEF 25, 50, and 75, maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV) index, and PEF were positively correlated with all respiratory parameters. Forced expiratory volume % (FEV%) was negatively correlated with vital capacity (VC) and forced vital capacity (FVC). This research helped us establish that the effect on the lungs due to COVID is not due to airway restriction or obstruction but reduced lung volume.
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.