Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions in Individuals With Emerging Virtual Respiratory Tract Infectious Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessing rehabilitation effectiveness for persistent symptoms post-infection with emerging viral respiratory diseases. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PEDro, MedRxiv, CNKI, Wanfang) until 30 December 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Evaluated 101 studies (9593 participants) on respiratory function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies and non-RCTs, and the NIH Quality Assessment Tools for before-after studies. RESULTS: The most common rehabilitation program combined breathing exercises with aerobic exercise or strength training. Rehabilitation interventions significantly enhanced respiratory function, as evidenced by improvements on the Borg Scale (MD, -1.85; 95% CI, -3.00 to -0.70, low certainty), the mMRC Dyspnea Scale (MD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.18, low certainty), and the Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 Scale (MD, -4.64; 95% CI, -6.54 to -2.74, moderate certainty). Exercise capacity also improved, demonstrated by results from the Six-Minute Walk Test (MD, 38.18; 95% CI, 25.33-51.03, moderate certainty) and the Sit-to-Stand Test (MD, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.07-5.01, low certainty). CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation interventions are promising for survivors of viral respiratory diseases, yet gaps in research remain. Future investigations should focus on personalizing rehabilitation efforts, utilizing remote technology-assisted programs, improving research quality, and identifying specific subgroups for customized rehabilitation strategies to achieve the best outcomes for survivors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".