The pulmonary rehabilitation effect on long covid-19 syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 Q3 REHABILITATION

Physiotherapy Research International Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1002/pri.2077

Oliver Martínez-Pozas, Erika Meléndez-Oliva, Lidia Martínez Rolando, José Antonio Quesada Rico, Camilo Corbellini, Eleuterio A Sánchez Romero

{"title":"The pulmonary rehabilitation effect on long covid-19 syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Oliver Martínez-Pozas, Erika Meléndez-Oliva, Lidia Martínez Rolando, José Antonio Quesada Rico, Camilo Corbellini, Eleuterio A Sánchez Romero","doi":"10.1002/pri.2077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in improving dyspnea, fatigue, physical activity, quality of life, anxiety and depression in patients with Long COVID-19 (LC). The impact of PR on LC and a comparison of face-to-face and telerehabilitation approaches was explored.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. A literature search included PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until January 2023. No language filters were applied. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis were performed. Forest plots presented results. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Metafor Package in R v.3.4.2.Results/findings: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 16 studies on PR in LC patients. A total of 1027 adults were included. The studies varied in design, with seven observational studies, three quasi-experimental studies, and six randomized controlled trials. Dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, psychological state, and fatigue were assessed as outcomes. The review found that pulmonary rehabilitation had a significant positive effect on dyspnea, physical function, quality of life (both global and physical domain), anxiety, and depression. However, the effect on fatigue was not significant. Heterogeneity was observed in some analyses, and publication bias was found in certain outcomes. Age and study design were identified as potential moderators. Both face-to-face and telerehabilitation interventions improved the studied outcomes, with only differences in the physical domain of quality of life favoring the face-to-face group.Implications on physiotherapy practice: PR improved dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, and psychological state in LC patients, but not fatigue. Face-to-face and telerehabilitation have similar effects, except for physical quality of life.","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":"29 2","pages":"e2077"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in improving dyspnea, fatigue, physical activity, quality of life, anxiety and depression in patients with Long COVID-19 (LC). The impact of PR on LC and a comparison of face-to-face and telerehabilitation approaches was explored.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. A literature search included PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until January 2023. No language filters were applied. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis were performed. Forest plots presented results. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Metafor Package in R v.3.4.2.

Results/findings: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 16 studies on PR in LC patients. A total of 1027 adults were included. The studies varied in design, with seven observational studies, three quasi-experimental studies, and six randomized controlled trials. Dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, psychological state, and fatigue were assessed as outcomes. The review found that pulmonary rehabilitation had a significant positive effect on dyspnea, physical function, quality of life (both global and physical domain), anxiety, and depression. However, the effect on fatigue was not significant. Heterogeneity was observed in some analyses, and publication bias was found in certain outcomes. Age and study design were identified as potential moderators. Both face-to-face and telerehabilitation interventions improved the studied outcomes, with only differences in the physical domain of quality of life favoring the face-to-face group.

Implications on physiotherapy practice: PR improved dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, and psychological state in LC patients, but not fatigue. Face-to-face and telerehabilitation have similar effects, except for physical quality of life.

查看原文本刊更多论文

肺康复对长库维德-19 综合征的影响：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

研究目的本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估肺康复（PR）在改善长COVID-19（LC）患者呼吸困难、疲劳、体力活动、生活质量、焦虑和抑郁方面的疗效。研究还探讨了肺康复对 LC 的影响以及面对面康复和远程康复方法的比较：本系统综述和荟萃分析遵循 PRISMA 指南，并在 PROSPERO 上注册。文献检索包括 PubMed、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library，截止日期为 2023 年 1 月。未使用语言过滤器。纳入了随机对照试验、非随机对照试验和观察性研究。使用适当的工具对偏倚风险进行了评估。进行了描述性分析和荟萃分析。森林图显示结果。统计分析使用 R v.3.4.2 中的 Metafor 软件包进行：本系统综述和荟萃分析纳入了 16 项有关 LC 患者 PR 的研究。共纳入 1027 名成人。这些研究的设计各不相同，其中包括 7 项观察性研究、3 项准实验研究和 6 项随机对照试验。评估结果包括呼吸困难、身体功能、生活质量、心理状态和疲劳。综述发现，肺康复对呼吸困难、身体功能、生活质量（整体和身体领域）、焦虑和抑郁有显著的积极影响。然而，对疲劳的影响并不显著。在一些分析中发现了异质性，在某些结果中发现了发表偏倚。年龄和研究设计被认为是潜在的调节因素。面对面干预和远程康复干预都改善了研究结果，只有在生活质量的身体领域中，面对面干预组更受青睐：物理治疗对物理治疗实践的启示：PR能改善LC患者的呼吸困难、身体功能、生活质量和心理状态，但不能改善疲劳。除身体生活质量外，面对面康复和远程康复的效果相似。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Physiotherapy Research International REHABILITATION-

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.