Observational studyPloS one2024
Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on ventilation dynamics measured during exertion in patients with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome: A cross-sectional observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment and management of post-COVID-19 pulmonary complications: a rapid review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Comparison between Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Dance in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Current health sciences journalArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended in people with post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), although there is a lack of studies evaluating its benefits via the most commonly used primary endpoint: the six-minute walk test (6MWT). This study evaluated the effects of PR on the dynamics of ventilation measured during the 6MWT in patients with PACS and, secondarily, evaluated the association of these findings with measures of lung function and structure.
methodsThis was an observational cross-sectional study of patients with PACS, in which 33 had undergone PR (PR-PACS group) and 32 had not undergone PR (NPR-PACS group). These patients underwent Spiropalm®-equipped 6MWT with measurement of inspiratory capacity (IC) to evaluate dynamic hyperinflation (DH). In addition, they performed spirometry, impulse oscillometry (IOS) and lung ultrasound (LUS).
resultsSpirometry was abnormal in 21.2% and 31.3% of participants in the PR-PACS and NPR-PACS groups, respectively (p = 0.36). IOS was abnormal in 28.6% and 66.7% of participants in the PR-PACS and NPR-PACS groups, respectively (p = 0.003). LUS was altered in 39.4% and 43.8% of the participants in the PR-PACS and NPR-PACS groups, respectively (p = 0.72). The 6-min walk distance (6MWD) was greater in the PR-PACS group than in the NPR-PACS group (p = 0.001]. HD was observed in 6.1% and 37.5% of participants in the PR-PACS and NPR-PACS groups, respectively, with a significant difference in ΔIC (p<0.001). The 6MWD correlated significantly with several IOS parameters and with ΔIC.
conclusionsPatients with PACS undergoing PR perform better in the 6MWT, with a higher 6MWD and less HD. In these patients, IOS is able to distinguish the effects of PR that are not differentiated by spirometry or LUS. Furthermore, the better the respiratory mechanics assessed by IOS and the less DH there was, the higher the performance in the 6MWT.
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.