Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39235257›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024

Effectiveness of telerehabilitation versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation on physical function and quality of life in people with post COVID-19 condition: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Oliver Martínez-Pozas, Camilo Corbellini, Juan N Cuenca-Zaldívar, Érika Meléndez-Oliva, Pierluigi Sinatti, Eleuterio A Sánchez Romero

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Assessment and management of post-COVID-19 pulmonary complications: a rapid review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Oliver Martínez-PozasInternational Postgraduate School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain - oliver.martp@gmail.com.
Camilo CorbelliniDepartment of Physiotherapy, LUNEX International University of Health, Exercise and Sports, Differdange, Luxembourg.
Juan N Cuenca-ZaldívarInterdisciplinary Research Group on Musculoskeletal Disorders, Faculty of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain.
Érika Meléndez-OlivaPhysiotherapy and Orofacial Pain Working Group, Spanish Society of Craniomandibular Dysfunction and Orofacial Pain (SEDCYDO), Madrid, Spain.
Pierluigi SinattiDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Sport Sciences, European University of Madrid, Villaviciosa de Odón, Spain.
Eleuterio A Sánchez RomeroPhysiotherapy and Orofacial Pain Working Group, Spanish Society of Craniomandibular Dysfunction and Orofacial Pain (SEDCYDO), Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPost COVID-19 condition (PCC) is characterized by the persistence of symptoms associated with COVID-19 infection for more than 12 weeks, with worsening quality of life and physical function deconditioning being among the most commonly reported persistent symptoms. Pulmonary rehabilitation has emerged as a safe and viable option for these patients. Administered either face-to-face (FTF) or telemedicine (TL), it has been shown to improve symptoms associated with PCC. However, little is known about which approach is best for this population. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis on the efficacy of FTF versus TL compared to usual care in improving physical function and quality of life (physical and mental) in patients with PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed from 2020 to January 5 EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from 10 studies, five of which were treated with FTF and five of which were TL, involving 765 adults with PCC, ranging in age from 22 to 66 years. Interventions consisted of isolated or combined exercises (aerobic, resistance, breathing) and lasted between three and ten weeks in most of the included studies. Multivariate analysis found that FTF produced significant differences compared to TL or usual care with moderate quality of evidence. Univariate analysis found that significant differences were only found for physical function and mental domain of quality of life for TL vs. usual care, with moderate quality of evidence.

conclusionsThis study supports the use of FTF as a therapy to improve physical function and quality of life in patients with PCC. However, in the absence of differences between FTF and TL in the univariate model for any of the outcomes studied, the choice of the form of pulmonary rehabilitation administration should be individualized. Future studies should compare FTF with TL directly to clarify which is the best approach.

Indexed as

Post-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeQuality of LifeTelerehabilitationHumans

Identifiers

PMID39235257
PMCPMC11561472

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.