Effectiveness of telerehabilitation versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation on physical function and quality of life in people with post COVID-19 condition: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Oliver Martínez-Pozas, Camilo Corbellini, Juan N Cuenca-Zaldívar and 3 others
PMID 39235257WHAT IT FOUND
Face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation improved physical function and quality of life more than telerehabilitation or usual care.
Telerehabilitation also helped compared to usual care, but the evidence for it was less certain. Choose the delivery method that best suits the patient's access and preferences.
Key findings
01Face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation showed significant improvements in physical function and quality of life compared to usual care.
02Telerehabilitation showed significant improvements in physical function and mental quality of life compared to usual care, but not in physical quality of life.
03Face-to-face rehabilitation was superior to telerehabilitation in the multivariate analysis, but no significant differences were found between them in the univariate analysis.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The included studies had small sample sizes, with most having fewer than 100 participants. There was no long-term follow-up in any study to determine if the improvements lasted. The definition of 'usual care' varied widely across studies, ranging from no intervention to unsupervised exercises. Blinding was poorly implemented, with only half of the studies reporting outcome assessor blinding. The multivariate analysis included only three studies, which may affect the robustness of the ranking.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume telerehabilitation is ineffective. It showed significant improvements in physical function and mental quality of life compared to usual care. The lack of superiority over face-to-face in some analyses does not mean it does not work, especially given the small sample sizes and variability in control groups.