ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Study of the effectiveness of telemedicine-based pulmonary rehabilitation in recovered patients of COVID-19 pneumonitis.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of the telemedicine-based pulmonary rehabilitation programme in COVID-19 pneumonitis. Design: Prospective intervention study. Setting: Rehabilitation outpatient department, Tertiary-Care institute. Participants: Consecutive sample of patients ( Intervention: Six weeks of telemedicine-based pulmonary rehabilitation in recovered patients of COVID-19 infection. Outcome Measures: All patients were clinically assessed by six minutes walk test (6MWT), Modified Medical Research Council Scale (mMRC), 30s-STS and SF 36 at zero week and six weeks post-intervention. Statistical Analysis: Difference in means of pre- and post-intervention was compared using paired Results: The 6MWT, mMRC Scale, 30 seconds sit-to-stand test, and WHO QoL scale-SF 36 were assessed and post-rehabilitation sessions, all the patients' showed improvement in the prescribed parameters. After six weeks of respiratory rehabilitation, the distance covered in the 6MWT was significantly longer than that of before the intervention. There was a significant difference between zero and six weeks during the PR intervention. mMRC and 30s-STS results showed a significant difference between zero and six weeks (2.36 ± 0.598, 4.54 ± 1.94. Quality of life improved significantly after six weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation in eight domains of the SF-36. Conclusion: Six-week pulmonary rehabilitation programme delivered through telemedicine platform improves respiratory function, QoL and anxiety in patients with post-COVID-19 pneumonia during a recovery phase.
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.