Effect of Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Pulmonary Outcomes in Individuals With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Guidelines advocate the use of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in individuals with COVID-19. However, there is a lack of concrete information on inpatient PR. Therefore, we synthesized literature on the efficacy of inpatient PR on pulmonary outcomes in individuals with COVID-19. Methods: Using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase, three researchers screened 474 articles for eligibility with the search terms: (covid-19 or coronavirus or 2019-ncov or sars-cov-2 or cov-19 *) AND (respiratory or pulmonary) AND (physical therapy or physiotherapy or rehabilitation). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used. Nine articles were finalized using the inclusion criteria: diagnosis of COVID-19, age >18 years and inpatient PR. Reviewers extracted relevant information and appraised using the Robins-I tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Results: The pooled sample consisted of 718 participants (F = 35.2%, age = 36-71 y). Study quality for non-randomized trial was moderate, while cohort studies had a mean score of 7/9. The pooled estimate showed that inpatient PR could improve the exercise capacity with clinical importance for individuals with COVID-19. Within group changes were noted in FEV1 and FVC values (n = 4) and HR-QoL (n = 3). Inpatient PR was reported to be safe (n = 4). Conclusions: Current review suggests that inpatient PR was safe, feasible and induced large improvements in exercise capacity in individuals with COVID-19. Given the high heterogeneity, sample sizes and quality of designs of the included studies, findings should be interpreted with caution. Our study provides valuable evidence that inpatient PR is safe and may accelerate improvement in exercise capacity in individuals with COVID-19.
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 | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".