Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38386981›Full record

SynthesisPhysical therapy2025

Functional Recovery of Adults Following Acute COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sophie Middleton, Christos V Chalitsios, Tanvi Mungale, Zeinab M Hassanein, Alex R Jenkins, Charlotte E Bolton, Tricia M McKeever

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

7 authors.

Sophie MiddletonNottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9538-7214
Christos V ChalitsiosNottingham Centre for Epidemiology and Public Health, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0836-9385
Tanvi MungaleNottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK.
Zeinab M HassaneinNottingham Centre for Epidemiology and Public Health, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Alex R JenkinsNottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK.
Charlotte E BoltonNottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK.
Tricia M McKeeverNottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, City Hospital Campus, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the objective, functional recovery of patients more than 3 months after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

methodsComprehensive database searches of EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CINAHL, and Google Scholar in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement were carried out until October 19, 2022. Data were extracted and agreed in duplicate. Data were narratively synthesized, and a series of meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects inverse variance method.

resultsOne-hundred six papers covering 20,063 patients, who were either hospitalized or not hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and were followed-up between 3 and 24 months, were included. Percentage predicted 6-minute walk distance at 3 months to <5 months was 84.3% (95% CI = 79.2-89.3; n = 21; I2 = 98.3%) and 92.5% (95% CI = 89.8-95.3; n = 9; I2 = 94.5%) at ≥11 months. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing revealed the percentage predicted peak oxygen consumption rate ($peak\dot{\mathsf{V}}{\mathsf{o}}_{\mathsf{2}}$) at 3 months to <5 months was 77.3% (95% CI = 71.0-83.7; n = 6; I2 = 92.3%) and 95.4% (95% CI = 87.1-103.6; n = 2; I2 = 77.3%) at ≥11 months. Mean handgrip strength was greatest at ≥11 months at 31.16 kg (95% CI = 19.89-42.43; n = 2; I2 = 98.3%) of all time points. All analyses showed marked heterogeneity.

conclusionPatients have reduced physical function more than 3 months after COVID-19 infection. Better physical function in multiple physical domains is found after a longer recovery time. IMPACT: Physical function as measured by the 6-minute walk test, hand grip strength, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing is reduced at 3 months after COVID-19 infection and can remain over 11 months of follow-up. This protracted recovery following acute COVID-19 infection supports the need to assess physical function at any clinical follow-up, and further research into rehabilitation programs and intervention for patients who have not recovered.

Indexed as

COVID-19Recovery of FunctionAdultHand StrengthHumansSARS-CoV-2Walk TestCOVID-19FunctionalMuscle StrengthPhysicalRecoveryWalking

Identifiers

PMID38386981
PMCPMC11738174

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.