ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2024
Knowledge and perceptions regarding pulmonary rehabilitation amongst Ecuadorian physicians following COVID-19 outbreak.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is already an established technique for patients with chronic respiratory disease, aimed at improving breathlessness, exercise capacity, health status, and well-being. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and perceptions about pulmonary rehabilitation post-COVID-19 infection among Ecuadorian physicians. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey-based study using a 27-item questionnaire to assess the knowledge about specific topics related to pulmonary rehabilitation. The sample comprised Ecuadorian physicians who were currently enrolled to an active medical practice that included care to COVID-19 patients. Descriptive statistics were applied for demographic variables of interest. A chi-square goodness of fit test was used to determine whether the observed frequencies of each of the answers per query were within or outside of the expected frequencies by chance. Results: In total, 295 participants answered the survey, out of which 57.3% were general practitioners. Most agreed that COVID-19 infected patients must be followed-up with some measurement of respiratory function (81.4%, p=0.000), but only 18.3% (n=54, p=0.000) were aware of specific guidelines related to rehabilitation. 93.6% (n=276, p=0.000) considered that pulmonary rehabilitation provides a benefit, of any kind, to patients with past COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: Most physicians considered pulmonary rehabilitation beneficial following COVID-19. However, there is uncertainty on how to adequately follow up patients, complementary tests, and specific guidelines outlining rehabilitative interventions.
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.