Evidence Hub

Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with long COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Shi-Ge Li, B. Dai, Yu-Sheng Hou, Liang Zhang, Jieyu Liu, Hai-Jia Hou, Dan-Dan Song, Sheng-Chen Wang et al.

Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease, 2025

3,363 participants · 28 citations

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has demonstrated efficacy in managing long COVID-19, underscoring the need to refine and tailor PR strategies for optimal patient outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of PR on patients with long COVID-19 and to compare the efficacy of different types and durations of PR interventions. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: We systematically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness of PR in long COVID-19 patients published before April 2024. The primary outcomes were physical capacity assessed by the 6-minute walking test (6MWT), lung function measured by forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and fatigue. Secondary outcomes were thirty-second sit-to-stand test (30STST), handgrip strength tests, maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), maximal expiratory pressure (MEP), dyspnea, depression, anxiety, perceived effort, and adverse events. Results: A total of 37 studies with 3363 patients were included. Compared to controls, PR improved physical capacity (6MWT, 30STST, handgrip), lung function (FEV1, FVC, MIP, MEP), HRQoL, fatigue, dyspnea, and anxiety but did not reach statistical significance for depression. Subgroup analyses of PR duration indicated that programs of ⩽4 weeks improved 6MWT; those between 4 and 8 weeks significantly improved 6MWT, lung function (FEV1, FVC), HRQoL, and reduced…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,363 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free