Evidence mapPaperPMID 34501596Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Effectiveness of a Three-Week Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program for Patients after COVID-19: A Prospective Observational Study.

Markus C Hayden, Matthias Limbach, Michael Schuler, Steffen Merkl, Gabriele Schwarzl, Katalin Jakab, Dennis Nowak, Konrad Schultz

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Non-Pharmacological Therapies for Post-Viral Syndromes, Including Long COVID: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Prevalence, risk factors and treatments for post-COVID-19 breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Evidence of quality of life for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a scoping review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Markus C HaydenBad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3934-484X
Matthias LimbachBad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Michael SchulerInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biometry, University of Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.
Steffen MerklBad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Gabriele SchwarzlBad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Katalin JakabBad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.
Dennis NowakComprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC), German Center for Lung for Lung Research (DZL), Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Clinic of the University of Munich, 80336 München, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7871-8686
Konrad SchultzBad Reichenhall Clinic, Centre for Rehabilitation, Pulmonology and Orthopedics, 83435 Bad Reichenhall, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0067-389X
Klinik Bad Reichenhall · DELMU Klinikum · DEUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For COVID-19 patients who remain symptomatic after the acute phase, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended. However, only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of PR, especially considering the duration between the acute phase of COVID-19 and the onset of rehabilitation, as well as the initial severity. This prospective observational study evaluated the efficacy of PR in patients after COVID-19. A total of 120 still-symptomatic patients referred for PR after overcoming acute COVID-19 were asked to participate, of whom 108 (mean age 55.6 ± 10.1 years, 45.4% female) consented. The patients were assigned to three groups according to the time of referral and initial disease severity (severe acute; severe after interval; mild after interval). The primary outcome was dyspnea. Secondary outcomes included other respiratory disease symptoms, physical capacity, lung function, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, patients rated the overall effectiveness of PR and their subjective change in health status. At the end of PR, we detected improvements with large effect sizes in exertional dyspnea, physical capacity, QoL, fatigue, and depression in the overall group. Other parameters changed with small to medium effect sizes. PR was effective after acute COVID-19 in all three groups analyzed.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAgedDyspneaFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2Treatment Outcomecourse of recoveryCOVID-19inpatient rehabilitationpulmonary rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID34501596
PMCPMC8430843
OpenAlexW3193620310

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.