Objective: The purpose of this article was to summarize the available evidence from systematic reviews on telerehabilitation in physical therapy. Methods: We searched 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 in the 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. The 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 with in-person rehabilitation or better than no rehabilitation for conditions such as osteoarthritis, low-back pain, hip and knee replacement, and 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 the best available evidence on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to professionals, mainly physical therapists, will impact the decision-making process and therefore yield better clinical outcomes for patients, both in these times of the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. The identification of research gaps will also contribute to the generation of relevant and novel research questions.

Evidence suggests lungs as the organ most affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The literature on previous coronavirus infections reports that patients may experience persistent impairment in respiratory function after being discharged. Our objective was to determine the prevalence of restrictive pattern, obstructive pattern and altered diffusion in patients post-COVID-19 infection and to describe the different evaluations of respiratory function used with these patients. A systematic review was conducted in five databases. Studies that used lung function testing to assess post-infection COVID-19 patients were included for review. Two independent reviewers analysed the studies, extracted the data and assessed the quality of evidence. Of the 1973 reports returned by the initial search, seven articles reporting on 380 patients were included in the data synthesis. In the sensitivity analysis, we found a prevalence of 0.39 (CI 0.24–0.56, p < 0.01, I2 = 86%), 0.15 (CI 0.09–0.22, p = 0.03, I2 = 59%), and 0.07 (CI 0.04–0.11, p = 0.31, I2 = 16%) for altered diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO), restrictive pattern and obstructive pattern, respectively. Post-infection COVID-19 patients showed impaired lung function; the most important of the pulmonary function tests affected was the diffusion capacity.

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.

Background: Coronavirus disease has provoked much discussion since its first appearance. Despite it being widely studied all over the world, little is known about the impact of the disease on functional ability related to performing activities of daily living (ADL) in patients post COVID-19 infection. Objectives: To understand the impact of COVID-19 on ADL performance of adult patients and to describe the common scales used to assess performance of ADL on patients post-COVID-19. Methods: A systematic review was conducted. We included studies that applied a physical capacity test in COVID-19 patients, post-infection. Two independent reviewers analyzed the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the evidence. Results: A total of 1,228 studies were included, after removing duplicates, 1,005 abstracts were screened and of those 983 were excluded. A final number of nine studies which met the eligibility criteria were included. The findings revealed worsening of physical function and ADL performance in all patients post COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: All included studies found a reduction of ADL beyond the test or scale used, revealing a vital worsening of functional ability in ADL performance and consequently loss of independence in COVID-19 patients after the acute phase of infection. Functional ability status previous to COVID-19 is crucial for predicting the severity of the disease and mortality. Barthel Index and ADL score were the most used assessment tools across subjects with different intrinsic capacity and context levels.

In many health systems, it is difficult to carry out traditional rehabilitation programs as the systems are stressed. We evaluate the effectiveness of a telerehabilitation program conducted in primary care in post-COVID-19 patients. An observational, prospective study was conducted in seven primary care centers in Chile. We included adult patients (>18 years) with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The telerehabilitation program consisted of 24 sessions of supervised home-based exercise training. The efficacy was measured by the 1-min sit-to-stand test (1-min STST), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), fatigue, and dyspnea symptoms before and after intervention. We included 115 patients (55.4% female) with a mean age of 55.6 ± 12.7 years. Fifty-seven patients (50%) had antecedents of hospitalization, and 35 (30.4%) were admitted to the ICU. The 1-min STST was improved after the intervention from 20.5 ± 10.2 (53.1 ± 25.0%predicted) to 29.4 ± 11.9 (78.2 ± 28.0%predicted) repetitions (p < 0.001). The SF-36 global score improved significantly from 39.6 ± 17.6 to 58.9 ± 20.5. Fatigue and dyspnea improved significantly after the intervention. Although limited by the absence of a control group, this report showed that a telerehabilitation program applied in primary health care is feasible and was effective in improving physical capacity, quality of life and symptoms in adult survivors of COVID-19.