ArticleERJ open research2026
Rehabilitation in long COVID: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The long-term effects of rehabilitation in individuals with long COVID remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the short- and long-term impacts of rehabilitation programmes on exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pulmonary function, chronic dyspnoea, anxiety, depression and fatigue in people with long COVID. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, five databases were searched, with the final search updated in August 2025. Eligible studies included adults with long COVID who underwent rehabilitation interventions. Outcomes were synthesised using meta-analyses and narrative synthesis where appropriate. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools for both randomised and nonrandomised studies. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024535365). Results: 12 studies (n=1403 participants) published between 2020 and 2025 were included. In the short term, rehabilitation compared with usual care significantly increased exercise capacity (6-min walking test; mean difference (MD) 102.34 m; 95% CI 44.48-160.21 m; p<0.0001), reduced dyspnoea (modified Medical Research Council; MD -1.44; 95% CI -2.72- -0.16) and anxiety symptoms (hospital anxiety and depression scale-A; MD -1.64; 95% CI -3.02- -0.26; p=0.02). Studies showed wide variation in educational content and delivery. No significant long-term effects were observed in pooled quantitative analyses for HRQoL or dyspnoea; however, qualitative findings indicated sustained improvements in HRQoL in some longitudinal studies. Conclusion: Rehabilitation programmes yielded short-term benefits in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and anxiety. Evidence for long-term efficacy remains limited and inconsistent. Further high-quality, follow-up studies are needed to determine the durability of these effects in people with long COVID.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.