Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38903009›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024

Pulmonary rehabilitation in follow-up and inpatient rehabilitation for Long COVID: twelve months of follow-up.

Mercedes Rutsch, Heike Buhr-Schinner, Thomas Gross, Per O Schüller, Ruth Deck

Abstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

5 authors.

Mercedes RutschDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany - mercedes.rutsch@uksh.de.
Heike Buhr-SchinnerOstseeklinik Schönberg-Holm, Schönberg-Holm, Germany.
Thomas GrossReha-Zentrum Schömberg, Schömberg, Germany.
Per O SchüllerMEDIAN Klinik Flechtingen, Flechtingen, Germany.
Ruth DeckDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals with persistent impairments due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can receive pulmonary rehabilitation in Germany. To date, there is no evidence of the medium- or long-term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on Long COVID.

aimThis study examined changes in health and occupational outcomes over time and described the therapeutic content of pulmonary rehabilitation and aftercare. This analysis also compared two rehabilitation groups after COVID-19 who had different levels of access to rehabilitation.

designLongitudinal observational study with multicenter and prospective data collection.

settingPulmonary rehabilitation in four different rehabilitation facilities in Germany. POPULATION: Individuals with a mild course of disease and long-lasting impairments (inpatient rehabilitation, IR) and patients with a severe course after hospitalization (follow-up rehabilitation, FuR). Participants had to be between 18 and 65 years of age.

methodsWritten questionnaires were administered at the beginning and end of rehabilitation, as well as six and twelve months after rehabilitation. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL), fatigue, participation restrictions, COVID-19 symptoms, mental and physical health were assessed, as well as occupational outcomes and questions about rehabilitation and aftercare.

resultsIR patients were predominantly female (68.0%) and 52 years of age on average, while 66.1% of Long COVID rehabilitees in FuR were male and three years older. Over the course of rehabilitation, most COVID-19 symptoms decreased with statistical significance. The subjective health scales showed improvements with medium to large effect sizes (ES) over time in IR (P<0.01; ES between 0.55 (cognitive fatigue) and 1.40 (physical fatigue)) and small to large effects in FuR (P<0.01; ES between 0.45 (anxiety) and 1.32 (physical fatigue)). One year after rehabilitation, most effects remained at a moderate level. After twelve months, an increase in neurocognitive symptoms was observed in FuR patients. More than 80% of employed people returned to work one year after rehabilitation, although FuR patients returned to work a median of four weeks later (P<0.01).

conclusionsThe comparative analysis showed that rehabilitees in different forms of rehabilitation attended rehabilitation with different impairments and rehabilitation goals, which are partly considered in treatment and aftercare. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: To provide needs-based rehabilitation to different rehabilitation groups with Long COVID, knowledge of their health histories and preferences is necessary.

Indexed as

COVID-19Quality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGermanyHumansInpatientsLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsProspective StudiesRehabilitation Centers

Identifiers

PMID38903009
PMCPMC11403629

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.