ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Pulmonary Function in Post-convalescent COVID-19 Adults: A Comparative Insight.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that is highly contagious and is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Symptoms vary from mild to severe, where most of the patients suffer from high fever, severe headaches, dry cough, and exhaustion, while the less common symptoms are diarrhea, loss of taste, sore throat, and loss of smell. Following recovery from COVID-19, some patients displayed a restricted pattern in the function of their lungs. As a result, documenting the effects of COVID-19 after infection is essential since it provides a better understanding of the long-term consequences of COVID-19. Hence, the objective of the present study was to assess pulmonary functions in post-convalescent COVID-19 patients. Methodology A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted among students and staff members of Gulf Medical University for a duration of one year from 2021 to 2022. Through a convenient sampling method, a total of 100 participants were recruited for the present study, in which pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed using a spirometer, and O2 levels were measured using a pulse oximeter. Additionally, respiratory rate and pulse rate were monitored. Results The present study highlighted the comparison of PFTs in post-convalescent COVID-19 patients and concluded that smoker and convalescent COVID-19 groups showed non-significant decrease (p>0.05) in forced vital capacity (FVC) prediction, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) prediction, FEV1/FVC%, forced mid-expiratory flow rate (FEF
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.