Apparent Discordance Between the Epidemiology of COVID-19 and Recommended Outcomes and Treatments: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Many survivors of COVID-19 experience ongoing signs and symptoms affecting multiple body systems that impair function and negatively affect participation and quality of life. The purpose of this review was to identify and synthesize outpatient rehabilitation assessment and treatment recommendations for adults in postacute COVID-19 stages. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Central, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched from January 1, 2020, to December 7, 2020. Teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. All study designs that included rehabilitation recommendations were included. Study design, country, study population, purpose, and rehabilitation recommendations were recorded. Select questions from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument were used to evaluate the quality of consensus guidelines. RESULTS: Forty-eight articles fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria (11 systematic reviews, 1 scoping review, 6 original research studies, 4 consensus guidelines, 26 narrative reviews, and editorials/commentaries). Recommended outcomes included exercise tolerance, respiratory function, muscle strength, and activities of daily living or functional independence. Recommended treatments included respiratory rehabilitation, exercise therapy, education, psychological support, activities of daily living and gait training, traditional Chinese medicine, and cognitive and vocational rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: There were incongruities between what is known about postacute COVID-19 and what was recommended in the literature. Given the relatively large proportion of survivors who experience ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 or post-COVID-19 syndrome, it is important to quickly develop tools for self-management and access to rehabilitation specialists in multidisciplinary teams. IMPACT: Physical therapists, occupational therapists, and respiratory therapists have an important role to play. Clinicians should focus on epidemiological evidence and emerging information on late sequelae of COVID-19 to inform rehabilitation programming and future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.259 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".