Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083165›Full record

SynthesisTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease

Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with long COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Shige Li, Bing Dai, Yusheng Hou, Liang Zhang, Jie Liu, Haijia Hou, Dandan Song, Shengchen Wang, Xiangrui Li, Hongwen Zhao and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

13 authors.

Shige LiDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Bing DaiDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Yusheng HouDepartment of Endocrinology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Liang ZhangDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, The People's Hospital of Liaoning Province, Shenyang, China.
Jie LiuDepartment of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Haijia HouDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Dandan SongDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Shengchen WangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xiangrui LiDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Hongwen ZhaoDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Jian KangDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Wei TanDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, No. 155, Nanjing North Street, Heping District, Shenyang 110000, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1149-4168

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated efficacy in managing long COVID-19, underscoring the need to refine and tailor PR strategies for optimal patient outcomes.

objectivesTo evaluate the impact of PR on patients with long COVID-19 and to compare the efficacy of different types and durations of PR interventions.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND

methodsWe systematically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness of PR in long COVID-19 patients published before April 2024. The primary outcomes were physical capacity assessed by the 6-minute walking test (6MWT), lung function measured by forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. Secondary outcomes were thirty-second sit-to-stand test (30STST), handgrip strength tests, maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximal expiratory pressure (MEP), dyspnea, depression, anxiety, perceived effort, and adverse events.

resultsA total of 37 studies with 3363 patients were included. Compared to controls, PR improved physical capacity (6MWT, 30STST, handgrip), lung function (FEV1, FVC, MIP, MEP), HRQoL, fatigue, dyspnea, and anxiety but did not reach statistical significance for depression. Subgroup analyses of PR duration indicated that programs of ⩽4 weeks improved 6MWT; those between 4 and 8 weeks significantly improved 6MWT, lung function (FEV1, FVC), HRQoL, and reduced fatigue; and programs over 8 weeks improved HRQoL and reduced fatigue. Exercise type analysis revealed that breathing exercises improved 6MWT, lung function (FEV1, FVC), and HRQoL; multicomponent exercises enhanced 6MWT performance and reduced fatigue; the combination of both types improved 6MWT, FEV1 (L), FVC (%pred), HRQoL, and reduced fatigue.

conclusionPR improves physical capacity, lung function, and quality of life and alleviates dyspnea, fatigue, and anxiety in long COVID-19 patients. A 4- to 8-week PR program and a combination of both breath exercises and multicomponent training is most effective for managing long-term COVID-19 syndromes.

trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42024455008.

Indexed as

COVID-19LungPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeExercise ToleranceHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionRespiratory Function TestsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeWalk Testexerciselong COVID-19pulmonary rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID40083165
PMCPMC11907626

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.