ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in improving dyspnea, fatigue, physical activity, quality of life, anxiety and depression in patients with Long COVID-19 (LC). The impact of PR on LC and a comparison of face-to-face and telerehabilitation approaches was explored. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. A literature search included PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until January 2023. No language filters were applied. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed using appropriate tools. Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis were performed. Forest plots presented results. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Metafor Package in R v.3.4.2. RESULTS/FINDINGS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 16 studies on PR in LC patients. A total of 1027 adults were included. The studies varied in design, with seven observational studies, three quasi-experimental studies, and six randomized controlled trials. Dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, psychological state, and fatigue were assessed as outcomes. The review found that pulmonary rehabilitation had a significant positive effect on dyspnea, physical function, quality of life (both global and physical domain), anxiety, and depression. However, the effect on fatigue was not significant. Heterogeneity was observed in some analyses, and publication bias was found in certain outcomes. Age and study design were identified as potential moderators. Both face-to-face and telerehabilitation interventions improved the studied outcomes, with only differences in the physical domain of quality of life favoring the face-to-face group. IMPLICATIONS ON PHYSIOTHERAPY PRACTICE: PR improved dyspnea, physical function, quality of life, and psychological state in LC patients, but not fatigue. Face-to-face and telerehabilitation have similar effects, except for physical quality of life.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Adult , Humans , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Fatigue , DyspneaABSTRACT
This systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) aimed to evaluate the diagnostic validity of portable electromyography (EMG) diagnostic devices compared to the reference standard method polysomnography (PSG) in assessing sleep bruxism. This systematic review was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered with PROSPERO prior to the accomplishment of the main search. Ten clinical studies on humans, assessing the diagnostic accuracy of portable instrumental approaches with respect to PSG, were included in the review. Methodological shortcomings were identified by QUADAS-2 quality assessment. The certainty of the evidence analysis was established by different levels of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy was performed with multiple thresholds per study applying a two-stage random effects model, using the thresholds offered by the studies and based on the number of EMG bruxism events per hour presented by the participants. Five studies were included. The MA indicated that portable EMG diagnostic devices showed a very good diagnostic capacity, although a high variability is evident in the studies with some outliers. Very low quality of evidence due to high risk of bias and high heterogeneity among included studies suggests that portable devices have shown high sensitivity and specificity when diagnosing sleep bruxism (SB) compared to polysomnography. The tests performed in the MA found an estimated optimal cut-off point of 7 events/hour of SB with acceptably high sensitivity and specificity for the EMG portable devices.