ArticleTurkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation2025
Continuous versus low-intensity interval aerobic exercise in pulmonary rehabilitation after COVID-19.
Article in Turkish journal of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of mild-moderate intensity continuous training (CT) and low-intensity interval moderate-intensity training (LIIT) aerobic exercises in pulmonary rehabilitation after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Patients and methods: This prospective study was conducted between January 2021 and January 2022. Sixty-three patients (47 males, 16 females; mean age: 54.3±11.3 years; range, 25 to 81 years) with one or more residual symptoms following COVID-19 infections were randomly included in the CT (n=33) or LIIT (n=30) groups. Fifteen sessions (60 min, 3-5/week) of aerobic exercise (20-min 40% of peak workload for CT; 40% peak workload with 3-min loaded and 1-min nonloaded intervals for LIIT, with 5 min warm-up and cool-down), breathing, and upper extremity strengthening exercises were applied. Outcome measures were symptom-limited submaximal exercise test, and six-minute walk test (6MWT), the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, modified Borg dyspnea scale, and Borg 6-20 rate of perceived exertion scale, hand grip strength, fat-free mass, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. Results: The maximum load and time reached during the exercise test, the 6MWT distance, hand grip strength, mMRC, HADS, and SF-36 scores significantly improved in both groups (p<0.05). Resting modified Borg dyspnea scores, heart rate, rate of perceived exertion, and oxygen supplementation requirement decreased significantly in the LIIT group (p<0.05). All posttreatment measures were similar in both groups (p>0.05). The changes in mMRC, resting heart rate, and 6MWT distance were significantly higher in the LIIT group compared to the CT group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Both CT and LIIT improved functional capacity, dyspnea, tachycardia, depression, and quality of life measures safely and effectively in COVID-19 survivors with residual symptoms. Patients with poor clinical status who cannot tolerate CT after an acute pulmonary condition such as COVID-19 may benefit from LIIT.
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.