ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Long-term effects of difference dosage of pulmonary rehabilitation program in post severe COVID-19 patients.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 can lead to severe respiratory complications requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Post-acute sequelae often include reduced pulmonary function, decreased physical capacity, and impaired quality of life. Pulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRPs) have shown promise in aiding recovery, but the long-term effectiveness and optimal dosage (number of sessions) remain unclear. Methods: A experimental, repeated-measures study was conducted at Hospital El Carmen de Maipú, Chile, involving 60 adults (male and female) who had received IMV due to severe COVID-19. Participants completed an individualized PRP consisting of sessions held twice weekly. Each session included 30 minutes of aerobic exercise, 20 minutes of strength training, and 10 minutes of stretching exercises. Participants were assigned to one of three intervention arms: 12, 24, or 36 sessions. Clinical outcomes included spirometric parameters, 6-min walk distance (6-MWD), Hand Grip Strength (HGS), functional status, and dyspnea. Psychological outcomes included quality of life and fatigue. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-intervention, and 1 year after the intervention. Results: Twelve-session group, significant improvements in Maximum Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) and 6-MWD were observed (p < 0.05). Clinical and psychological improvements were sustained at 1 year. Twenty four-session group, significant changes were found in Forced Vital Capacity (FVC % predicted) and right-hand grip strength (HGS) ( Conclusion: Individualized PRPs produced significant improvements in clinical and psychological outcomes in patients recovering from severe COVID-19 requiring IMV. Importantly, these benefits were maintained 1 year after the intervention, regardless of the number of sessions (12, 24, or 36). The lack of significant long-term differences among groups suggests that a shorter but personalized rehabilitation program may be sufficient to produce durable improvements in this population. These findings support the implementation of tailored PRPs as a key component of post-COVID-19 care.
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.