26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rehabilitation Interventions for Physical Capacity and Quality of Life in Adults With Post–COVID-19 Condition : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This meta-analysis reviews studies investigating the association of rehabilitation interventions with physical capacity and quality of life in adults with post–COVID-19 condition (PCC).

          Key Points

          Question

          Are respiratory training and exercise-based rehabilitation interventions associated with improved functional exercise capacity in adults with post–COVID-19 condition?

          Findings

          This systematic review, which incorporated a bayesian meta-analysis of 14 randomized clinical trials involving 1244 patients, found moderate-certainty evidence indicating that standardized rehabilitation interventions were associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity (standardized mean difference, −0.56; 95% credible interval −0.87 to −0.22) and had a 99% posterior probability of superiority compared with standard care. However, a high level of uncertainty and imprecision was observed concerning the probability of experiencing exercise-induced adverse events.

          Meaning

          Although respiratory training and exercise-based rehabilitation interventions might be associated with improved functional exercise capacity in patients with post–COVID-19 condition, it is recommended that health care professionals closely monitor these patients during the implementation of such interventions to ensure patient safety until more definitive evidence is available.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Current rehabilitation guidelines for patients with post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) are primarily based on expert opinions and observational data, and there is an urgent need for evidence-based rehabilitation interventions to support patients with PCC.

          Objective

          To synthesize the findings of existing studies that report on physical capacity (including functional exercise capacity, muscle function, dyspnea, and respiratory function) and quality of life outcomes following rehabilitation interventions in patients with PCC.

          Data Sources

          A systematic electronic search was performed from January 2020 until February 2023, in MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and the Clinical Trials Registry. Key terms that were used to identify potentially relevant studies included long-covid, post-covid, sequelae, exercise therapy, rehabilitation, physical activity, physical therapy, and randomized controlled trial.

          Study Selection

          This study included randomized clinical trials that compared respiratory training and exercise-based rehabilitation interventions with either placebo, usual care, waiting list, or control in patients with PCC.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A pairwise bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was performed using vague prior distributions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system by 2 independent researchers.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was functional exercise capacity, measured at the closest postintervention time point by the 6-minute walking test. Secondary outcomes were fatigue, lower limb muscle function, dyspnea, respiratory function, and quality of life. All outcomes were defined a priori. Continuous outcomes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and binary outcomes were summarized as odds ratios with 95% CrIs. The between-trial heterogeneity was quantified using the between-study variance, τ 2, and 95% CrIs.

          Results

          Of 1834 identified records, 1193 were screened, and 14 trials (1244 patients; 45% female participants; median [IQR] age, 50 [47 to 56] years) were included in the analyses. Rehabilitation interventions were associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity (SMD, −0.56; 95% CrI, −0.87 to −0.22) with moderate certainty in 7 trials (389 participants). These improvements had a 99% posterior probability of superiority when compared with current standard care. The value of τ 2 (0.04; 95% CrI, 0.00 to 0.60) indicated low statistical heterogeneity. However, there was significant uncertainty and imprecision regarding the probability of experiencing exercise-induced adverse events (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CrI, 0.32 to 9.94).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that rehabilitation interventions are associated with improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnea, and quality of life, with a high probability of improvement compared with the current standard care; the certainty of evidence was moderate for functional exercise capacity and quality of life and low for other outcomes. Given the uncertainty surrounding the safety outcomes, additional trials with enhanced monitoring of adverse events are necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

              Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                19 September 2023
                September 2023
                19 September 2023
                : 6
                : 9
                : e2333838
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ]Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St Joseph’s Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Health Technology Assessment Unit, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: August 8, 2023.
                Published: September 19, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33838
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 Pouliopoulou DV et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Dimitra V. Pouliopoulou, MSc, School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Science, Western University, 75 Ann St, Unit 204, London, ON N6A 1R1, Canada ( dpouliop@ 123456uwo.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Ms Pouliopoulou and Dr Bobos had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Pouliopoulou, MacDermid, Peters, Pereira, Bobos.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Pouliopoulou, Saunders, Peters, Brunton, Miller, Quinn, Pereira, Bobos.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Pouliopoulou, MacDermid, Saunders, Bobos.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Pouliopoulou, MacDermid, Peters, Brunton, Miller, Quinn, Pereira, Bobos.
                Statistical analysis: Pouliopoulou, Saunders, Pereira, Bobos.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Pouliopoulou, MacDermid.
                Supervision: MacDermid, Peters, Brunton, Bobos.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Pereira reported receiving consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, and Calecim; and grants from Johnson & Johnson and Medtronic outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Canada Research Chair in Musculoskeletal Health Outcomes and Knowledge Translation (to Dr Macdermid), the Dr James Roth Research Chair in Musculoskeletal Measurement and Knowledge Translation (to Dr Macdermid), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral award (to Dr Bobos), the Arthritis Society Postdoctoral Fellowship Award (20-0000000016 to Dr Bobos), and the Chevening Scholarship Program (to Dr Pereira).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi230977
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.33838
                10509723
                37725376
                72f99557-17fc-4a4d-a549-376ecb0d19fe
                Copyright 2023 Pouliopoulou DV et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 18 May 2023
                : 8 August 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

                Comments

                Comment on this article