SynthesisFamily practice2026
The role of 6-minute walk test and pulmonary function testing in patients with post COVID-19 condition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Family practice, 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivePost-COVID-19 condition (PCC) is a complication of acute COVID-19 infection, which often presents with respiratory symptoms. This review aimed to assess the prevalence of abnormal pulmonary function test (PFTs) and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) with oximetry findings, and their respective prevalence and magnitude of abnormalities in patients with PCC, compared to patients without PCC.
methodsWe searched three databases. Two reviewers independently screened articles using LASER Al and extracted relevant data using a piloted Excel sheet. We performed meta-analysis using OpenMeta and RevManWeb and a subgroup analysis based on patients' settings during acute COVID-19. We assessed the risk of bias using the Hoy et al. tool and the certainty using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
resultsWe included 30 studies that reported on the prevalence of abnormal PFTs and/or 6MWT in patients with PCC. Outcomes within PFTs and 6MWT showed that patients with PCC have a higher probability of having abnormal tests, with those hospitalized during their acute COVID-19 infection showing a higher probability of having abnormal tests. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low due to the high risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.
conclusionThis review provides insight into the utilization of PFTs and 6MWT and the frequency of test abnormalities in patients with PCC. Despite existing evidence, there is a need for future studies to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of these tests in PCC.
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.