ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Cardiopulmonary Response in Post-COVID-19 Individuals: A Cross-Sectional Study Comparing the Londrina Activities of Daily Living Protocol, 6-Minute Walk Test, and Glittre Activities of Daily Living Test.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study addresses the imperative need for reliable assessment protocols in guiding rehabilitation interventions for individuals post-COVID-19, considering the enduring physiological effects of the virus. A cohort of 40 post-COVID-19 individuals underwent assessments using the Londrina ADL protocol, Glittre ADL test, and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Physiological parameters were recorded during and after each test, including heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation. The post hoc comparisons between the pre-test and post-test cardiopulmonary response of the three tests showed significant differences, except diastolic blood pressure (6MWT vs. Londrina ADL protocol), heart rate (6MWT vs. Londrina ADL protocol), respiratory rate (6MWT vs. Londrina ADL protocol), blood oxygen level (SpO2) (6MWT vs. Londrina ADL protocol), dyspnea (Londrina ADL protocol vs. Glittre ADL test), and fatigue (Londrina ADL protocol vs. Glittre ADL test). The Londrina ADL protocol demonstrated cardio-pulmonary responses comparable to the Glittre ADL test, as well as the 6MWT, emphasizing its effectiveness in evaluating walking-related outcomes. The study concludes that the Londrina ADL protocol is a robust and practical tool for the routine clinical testing of daily living activities in post-COVID-19 individuals. While the 6MWT remains valuable for assessing walking-related outcomes, a combined approach employing the Londrina ADL protocol and 6MWT offers a comprehensive strategy for evaluating multifaceted functional capacities in this population.
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.