Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions on Adults With COVID-19 and Post-COVID-19 Condition. A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for adults with COVID-19 and post COVID-19 condition (PCC) in all settings. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched from inception to December 31st, 2021. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021258553. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) according to the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted data using a predetermined Excel form. DATA SYNTHESIS: The meta-analysis indicates uncertain evidence about the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation and self-activities on exercise capacity (MD 65.06, 95% CI 42.87 to 87.25), respiratory function (forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV1]: MD 0.16, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.28; FEV1/forced vital capacity [FVC]: MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; FVC: MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.42) and anxiety (MD -12.03, 95% CI -21.16 to -2.90) in mild COVID-19 and PCC patients. According to the narrative synthesis, including RCTs and NRSI, prone positioning seems to show improvements in vital parameters in severe COVID-19 post intensive care unit (ICU) discharge, pulmonary rehabilitation in activities of daily living, and qigong exercise and acupressure rehabilitation program, and "twist and raise" walking technique in reducing dyspnea and weakness in any degree of severity of COVID-19 and PCC. Functional electrical stimulation-cycling or early rehabilitation programs seem to support a faster recovery in patients with moderate COVID-19 after ICU discharge. Yoga and naturopathy, Mandala coloring, and respiratory exercise seem to reduce anxiety and depression in patients with moderate and mild COVID-19. Cognitive motor training seems to improve cognitive function in PCC patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is very uncertain evidence about the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on exercise capacity and respiratory function in patients with mild COVID-19 and PCC. Further high-quality research is required to improve the certainty of evidence available to support rehabilitation's crucial role in managing COVID-19.

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are the best evidence for informing on intervention effectiveness. Their results, however, can be biased due to omitted evidence in the quantitative analyses. We aimed to assess the proportion of randomized controlled trials omitted from meta-analyses in the rehabilitation field and explore related reasons. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. For each systematic review included in a published selected sample in the rehabilitation field, we identified an index meta-analysis on the primary outcome and the main comparison. We then looked at all the studies considered eligible for the chosen comparison in the systematic review and identified those trials that have been omitted (i.e., not included) from each index meta-analysis. Reasons for omission were collected based on an eight-reason classification. We used descriptive statistics to describe the proportion of omitted trials overall and according to each reason. RESULTS: Starting from a cohort of 827 systematic reviews, 131 index meta-analyses comprising a total of 1761 eligible trials were selected. Only 16 index meta-analyses included all eligible studies while 15 omitted studies without providing references. From the remaining 100 index meta-analyses, 717 trials (40,7%) were omitted overall. Specific reasons for omission were: "unable to distinguish between selective reporting and inadequate planning" (39,3%, N = 282), "inadequate planning" (17%, N = 122), "justified to be not included" (15,1%, N = 108), "incomplete reporting" (8,4%, N = 60), "selective reporting" (3,3%, N = 24) and other situations (e.g., outcome present but no motivation for omission) (5,2%, N = 37). The 11,7% (N = 84) of omitted trials were not assessed due to non-English language or full text not available. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the eligible trials were omitted from their index meta-analyses. Better reporting, protocol registration, definition and adoption of core outcome sets are needed to prevent omission of evidence in systematic reviews.

Muscle Power in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

This study aimed to review the impact of training on muscle power in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of exercise-based interventions on limbs muscle power and rate of force development in COPD patients were investigated. Five international databases were searched until October 2022. Meta-analyses were performed calculating the mean difference or standardized mean difference. Risk of bias in studies was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. A total of nine studies were included in the analysis. There were concerns about risk of bias in seven out of nine studies. Comparison of exercising and non-exercising groups showed a significant effect of exercise in improving muscle power (P=0.0004) and rate of force development (P<0.001), in five and three trials, respectively. Four studies comparing different trainings showed no significant results on muscle power (P=0.45). Eight to 16 weeks of exercise-based intervention versus no intervention might be beneficial to enhance upper and lower limbs muscle power and rate of force development in people with COPD. In contrast, muscle power did not improve when different training modalities were compared. Future studies performing power training in COPD patients are encouraged.

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition.

Objective: To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies; (ii) care models and pathways; and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions; (ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation; (iii) referral principles; (iv) service delivery settings; and (v) health-care professionals. Findings: We screened 13 753 titles and abstracts, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion: Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model; leveraging country health systems' strengths and learning from other conditions; financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes; and guidance to increase patient safety.

Bracing Interventions Can Help Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis with Surgical Indication: A Systematic Review.

There is a common agreement that bracing is appropriate for curves between 20 and 40° for the Cobb angle during growth, but for larger curves, the experts' opinions are not consistent. We designed this systematic review to report the updated evidence about the effectiveness of bracing in scoliosis patients with curves ≥40° and a residual growth period. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective observational studies, and case series addressing the effect of bracing in patients with idiopathic scoliosis during growth with curves ≥40° for the Cobb angle, published from 2000 onwards. Outcome: The percentage of patients with surgery, curves above 45° or 50°, and a Cobb angle change are all included in the study. Nine papers (563 patients, average worst curve of 44.8°) are included: four are retrospective case series, two are retrospective and two are prospective cohort studies, and one is a prospective controlled study. The overall quality was good, with respect to the type of design. A total of 32% of the patients improved, 26% were stable, and 42% worsened. The rate of improvement ranged from 11% to 78%; the rate of worsening ranged from 4% to 64%. There are some studies suggesting the use of bracing even in the case of severe curves when patients are motivated by trying to avoid surgery. More and better-quality research with coherent outcome criteria is needed.

The methodology of a "living" COVID-19 registry development in a clinical context.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe an innovative methodology of a registry development, constantly updated for the scientific assessment and analysis of the health status of the population with COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A methodological study design to develop a multi-site, Living COVID-19 Registry of COVID-19 patients admitted in Fondazione Don Gnocchi centres started in March 2020. RESULTS: The integration of the living systematic reviews and focus group methodologies led to a development of a registry which includes 520 fields filled in for 748 COVID-19 patients recruited from 17 Fondazione Don Gnocchi centres. The result is an evidence and experience-based registry, according to the evolution of a new pathology which was not known before outbreak of March 2020 and with the aim of building knowledge to provide a better quality of care for COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: A Living COVID-19 Registry is an open, living and up to date access to large-scale patient-level data sets that could help identifying important factors and modulating variable for recognising risk profiles and predicting treatment success in COVID-19 patients hospitalized. This innovative methodology might be used for other registries, to be sure which the data collected is an appropriate means of accomplishing the scientific objectives planned. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: not applicable.

Wearable Devices for Biofeedback Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Design Application Rules and Estimate the Effectiveness on Balance and Gait Outcomes in Neurological Diseases.

Wearable devices are used in rehabilitation to provide biofeedback about biomechanical or physiological body parameters to improve outcomes in people with neurological diseases. This is a promising approach that influences motor learning and patients' engagement. Nevertheless, it is not yet clear what the most commonly used sensor configurations are, and it is also not clear which biofeedback components are used for which pathology. To explore these aspects and estimate the effectiveness of wearable device biofeedback rehabilitation on balance and gait, we conducted a systematic review by electronic search on MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, and the Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to January 2020. Nineteen randomized controlled trials were included (Parkinson's n = 6; stroke n = 13; mild cognitive impairment n = 1). Wearable devices mostly provided real-time biofeedback during exercise, using biomechanical sensors and a positive reinforcement feedback strategy through auditory or visual modes. Some notable points that could be improved were identified in the included studies; these were helpful in providing practical design rules to maximize the prospective of wearable device biofeedback rehabilitation. Due to the current quality of the literature, it was not possible to achieve firm conclusions about the effectiveness of wearable device biofeedback rehabilitation. However, wearable device biofeedback rehabilitation seems to provide positive effects on dynamic balance and gait for PwND, but higher-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed for stronger conclusions.

Reliability of activity monitors for physical activity assessment in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Activity monitors have been introduced in the last years to objectively measure physical activity to help physicians in the management of musculoskeletal patients. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed at describing the assessment of physical activity by commercially available portable activity monitors in patients with musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PEDro, Web of Science, Scopus and CENTRAL databases were systematically searched from inception to June 11th, 2020. We considered as eligible observational studies with: musculoskeletal patients; physical activity measured by wearable sensors based on inertial measurement units; comparisons performed with other tools; outcomes consisting of number of steps/day, activity/inactivity time, or activity counts/day. RESULTS: Out of 595 records, after removing duplicates, title/abstract and full text screening, 10 articles were included. We noticed a wide heterogeneity in the wearable devices, that resulted to be 10 different types. Patients included suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and fibromyalgia. Only 3 studies compared portable activity trackers with objective measurement tools. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, this systematic review showed that activity monitors might be considered as useful to assess physical activity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders, albeit, to date, the high device heterogeneity and the different algorithms still prevent their standardization.

Methodological Issues in Rehabilitation Research: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, synthesize, and categorize the methodological issues faced by the rehabilitation field. DATA SOURCES: A scoping review was conducted using studies identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Google Scholar up to August 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We included all type of publications describing methodological issues in rehabilitation research where rehabilitation is described as a multimodal process. The methodological issues have been categorized and classified. DATA EXTRACTION: The synthesis included qualitative and quantitative analysis. To focus the attention on rehabilitation, we post hoc divided in "specific issues" (highly related to, even if not exclusive of, rehabilitation research) and "generic issues" (common in biomedical research). DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-one publications were included: 68% were narrative reviews, 15% systematic reviews, 7% editorials, 4% meta-epidemiologic studies, and 5% others. Specific methodological issues include the following: problematic application of randomized controlled trials (32%), absent definition of core outcome sets (28%), poor interventions description (22%), weak methodological (conducting) and reporting quality (21%), scarce clinical practice applicability (14%), lack of blinding assessor (10%), inadequate randomization methods or inadequate allocation concealment (8%), and inadequate participants description and recruitment (8%). "Generic" issues included the following: data and statistical description (31%), authors' methodological training (7%), peer review process (6%, n=4), funding declaration (6%), ethical statement (3%), protocol registration (3%), and conflict of interest declaration (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting issues might influence the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The next steps to move forward in the field of rehabilitation could be to evaluate the influence of all these issues on the validity of trial results through meta-epidemiologic studies and to develop specific checklists to provide guidance to authors to improve the reporting and conduct of trials in this field.

Students 4 Best Evidence as a digital Problem-Based Learning method to improve Evidence-Based Practice competencies in undergraduate physiotherapy students: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an essential element in the delivery of high-quality care and healthcare professionals make clinical decisions based on the best available research. Experts and international organisations have emphasised the need for healthcare professionals to possess adequate competencies for EBP. An EBP learning laboratory has been established at an Italian university to educate medical and other health professional students in the use of evidence in clinical practice and research. Students 4 Best Evidence (S4BE) is an online community of students from around the world, from school age to university, who are interested in learning more about EBP. As well as featuring a library of learning resources, the site also provides a platform for students to write their own blogs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an EBP laboratory, using S4BE as an educational tool, to teach EBP competencies to undergraduate physiotherapy students. DESIGN: We ran an observational pretest and post-test study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The sample included 121 students completing a bachelor's degree in Physiotherapy at an Italian University. INTERVENTION: The intervention consisted of using the S4BE platform as the digital Problem-Based Learning (DPBL) method to teach EBP competencies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RESULTS: The students showed a significant improvement in all domains (p<0.001), except in the sympathy domain, where the percentage score decreased from 71% to 60%. The best improvements were reached in terminology (54% to 65%) and in practice (41% to 55%) domains. CONCLUSION: This study proposed an effective educational protocol, based on a DPBL approach, using S4BE as a digital technology tool. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of this educational protocol compared with traditional learning methods for physiotherapy students. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03707119.