SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Effectiveness of telerehabilitation in patients with post-COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPost-COVID-19 syndrome affects 10-15% of survivors, causing multisystem complications and significant economic burden. Telerehabilitation (TR) has emerged as a scalable solution to deliver care remotely. This study aims to re-evaluate the effectiveness of TR in improving physical and psychological outcomes in post-COVID-19 patients.
methodsRegistered on PROSPERO (CRD420251082578) under PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus from April 2024 till July 2025 for randomized trials. Primary outcomes included clinical symptoms (Borg score, dyspnea) and physical function (30-s sit-to-stand test, 6-min walking distance). A random-effects model assessed pooled outcomes with heterogeneity (I
resultsTwenty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCT's) comprising approximately 1,400 participants were included. TR significantly improved physical function, including the 30 s-STS (MD = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.90; p < 0.00001) and 6MWD (MD = 85.83 m; 95% CI: 67.14 to 104.52; p < 0.00001). Significant reductions were observed in dyspnea (Borg overall MD = -3.74, p = 0.003) and fatigue (VASF MD = -1.83, p < 0.0001). However, no significant differences were found for HADS-Anxiety (p = 0.27) or HADS-Depression (p = 0.11). Pulmonary function showed significant gains only in FEV1 change scores (p = 0.008). Preliminary data suggests a favorable safety profile; while no serious adverse events were reported across the trials, safety was infrequently listed as a primary outcome.
conclusionTR appears to be a promising and well-tolerated modality for enhancing physical capacity and alleviating fatigue in post-COVID-19 patients, though further large-scale studies with safety as a primary endpoint are warranted to definitively establish its safety profile. While physical gains are robust, additional targeted interventions may be necessary to address psychological and pulmonary sequelae.
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.