ArticleERJ open research2026
Tele-rehabilitation for individuals with long COVID: a randomised clinical trial.
Article in ERJ open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shifting focus to phenotypes: the evolution of long COVID rehabilitation.ERJ open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most trials in long COVID rehabilitation included only previously hospitalised patients and omitted outcome measures such as mobility, an important outcome for assessing life impact. The primary objective was to investigate whether an 8-week tele-rehabilitation programme for individuals with long COVID improves functional mobility compared with usual care. Methods: This was a randomised controlled trial involving individuals with long COVID and persistent symptoms of reduced mobility, muscle weakness, dyspnoea or fatigue. Participants were randomised to either an individualised 8-week tele-rehabilitation programme plus usual care or usual care. In both groups, usual care was supplemented with generic guidance on physical activity and symptom management. The primary outcome was activity measure for post-acute care (AM-PAC) mobility. The secondary outcomes were dyspnoea, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, mental health, acceptability and adverse events. Results: 132 participants were randomised (65 intervention; 67 control; 48±11.8 years; 75% female), with 78% not previously hospitalised. Adherence was high (96%), although 39% of intervention participants were unable to progress their exercises. No significant between-group differences were found in AM-PAC mobility (mean difference (MD) 0.61; 95% CI -0.91-2.13). The intervention group showed greater improvements in EQ-5D-5L pain (MD -0.36; 95% CI -0.70- -0.03), health status (MD 7.74; 95% CI 1.05-14.43), fatigue (MD -0.90; 95% CI -1.78- -0.02) and dyspnoea (MD 1.24; 95% CI 0.10-2.37). No serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: In the context of limited evidence around exercise in non-hospitalised individuals with long COVID, our study offers important insights into feasibility, safety and clinical relevance.
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.