No abstract

Objective The purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy. Methods Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. In addition, the records in PROSPERO and Epistemonikos and PEDro were consulted. Systematic reviews of different conditions, populations and contexts, where the intervention to be evaluated is telerehabilitation by physical therapy were included. The outcomes were clinical effectiveness depending on specific condition, functionality, quality of life, satisfaction, adherence and safety. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by a reviewer with non-independent verification by a second reviewer. The findings are reported qualitatively by tables and figures. Results Fifty-three systematic reviews were included of which 17 were assessed as having low risk of bias. Fifteen reviews were on cardiorespiratory rehabilitation, 14 on musculoskeletal conditions and 13 on neurorehabilitation. Other 11 reviews addressed other types of conditions and rehabilitation. Thirteen reviews evaluated with low risk of bias showed results in favor of telerehabilitation versus in-person rehabilitation or no-rehabilitation, while 17 reported no differences between the groups. Thirty-five reviews with unclear or high risk of bias showed mixed results. Conclusions Despite the contradictory results, telerehabilitation in physical therapy could be comparable to in-person rehabilitation or better than no-rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low back pain, hip and knee replacement, multiple sclerosis, and also in the context of cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. It is imperative to conduct better quality clinical trials and systematic reviews. Impact Providing with the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of covid-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.

Background: The long-term impact of COVID-19 is still unknown. This study aimed to explore post COVID-19 effects on patients chest computed tomography (CT), lung function, respiratory symptoms, fatigue, functional capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the ability to return to work beyond 3 months post infection. Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE on 22 May 2021, to identify studies that reported persistent effects of COVID-19 beyond 3 months follow-up. Data on the proportion of patients who had the outcome were collected and analyzed using a one-group meta-analysis. Results: Data were extracted from 24 articles that presented information on a total of 5323 adults, post-infection, between 3 to 6 months after symptom onset or hospital discharge. The pooled prevalence of CT abnormalities was 59% (95% CI 44–73, I2 = 96%), abnormal lung function was 39% (95% CI 24–55, I2 = 94%), fatigue was 38% (95% CI 27–49, I2 = 98%), dyspnea was 32% (95% CI 24–40, I2 = 98%), chest paint/tightness was 16% (95% CI 12–21, I2 = 94%), and cough was 13%, (95% CI 9–17, I2 = 94%). Decreased functional capacity and HRQoL were found in 36% (95% CI 22–49, I2 = 97%) and 52% (95% CI 33–71, I2 = 94%), respectively. On average, 8 out of 10 of the patients had returned to work or reported no work impairment. Conclusion: Post-COVID-19 patients may experience persistent respiratory symptoms, fatigue, decreased functional capacity and decreased quality of life up to 6 months after infection. Further studies are needed to establish the extent to which post-COVID-19 effects continue beyond 6 months, how they interact with each other, and to clarify their causes and their effective management.

Knowledge on the sequelae of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains limited due to the relatively recent onset of this pathology. However, the literature on other types of coronavirus infections prior to COVID-19 reports that patients may experience persistent symptoms after discharge. To determine the prevalence of respiratory symptoms in survivors of hospital admission after COVID-19 infection. A living systematic review of five databases was performed in order to identify studies which reported the persistence of respiratory symptoms in COVID-19 patients after discharge. Two independent researchers reviewed and analysed the available literature, and then extracted and assessed the quality of those articles. Of the 1,154 reports returned by the initial search nine articles were found, in which 1,816 patients were included in the data synthesis. In the pooled analysis, we found a prevalence of 0.52 (CI 0.38–0.66, p < 0.01, I 2 = 97%), 0.37 (CI 0.28–0.48, p < 0.01, I 2 = 93%), 0.16 (CI 0.10–0.23, p < 0.01, I 2 = 90%) and 0.14 (CI 0.06–0.24, p < 0.01, I 2 = 96%) for fatigue, dyspnoea, chest pain, and cough, respectively. Fatigue, dyspnoea, chest pain, and cough were the most prevalent respiratory symptoms found in 52%, 37%, 16% and 14% of patients between 3 weeks and 3 months, after discharge in survivors of hospital admission by COVID-19, respectively.