Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: This paper updates and summarizes the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences of the disease and its treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies published from May 1st to June 30th, 2021 were selected, excluding descriptive studies and expert opinions. Papers were categorized according to study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest, and type of rehabilitation service involved. From this edition, we improved the quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five, out of 3699 papers, were included. They were three RCTs, 13 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies. Twenty studies reported data on symptom prevalence (N.=13) or disease natural history (N.=7); and five studies reported intervention effectiveness at the individual level. All study participants were COVID survivors and 48% of studies collected information on participants 6 months or longer after COVID-19 onset. The most frequent risks of bias for RCTs concerned weaknesses in allocation concealment, blinding of therapists, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. Most analytical studies failed to identify or deal with confounders, describe or deal with dropouts or eventually perform an appropriate statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies in this updated review targeted the prevalence of limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in COVID-19 survivors. This is similar to past review findings; however, data in the new studies was collected at longer follow-up periods (up to one year after symptom onset) and in larger samples of participants. More RCTs and analytical observational studies are available, but the methodological quality of recently published studies is low. There is a need for good quality intervention efficacy and effectiveness studies to complement the rapidly expanding evidence from observational studies.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field. Update as of October 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: This living systematic review presents the monthly update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action Steering Committee. The aim of this study was to update the monthly COVID-19 and rehabilitation literature research up to October 31st, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action was applied. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PEDro databases were searched, and papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarized descriptively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The database search retrieved 2704 publications. Duplicates were removed, and 1185 unique records were screened for inclusion. After screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 22 papers were included in the present review. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence table, 17 studies (77%) fall within the level of evidence 4 category, while the remainder (23%) are categorized as level of evidence 3. Most studies (N.=19; 86%) provided epidemiological data about the disease natural history/determining factor or the clinical presentation of COVID-19 infection, while only two studies focused on health service organization and intervention efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The most recent published COVID-19 research relevant to rehabilitation primarily provides data on the clinical course and the clinical presentation of the pathology, rather than on rehabilitation interventions or service delivery. Studies with high levels of evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions, long-term monitoring, or new health service organization models are lacking.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field updated as of December 31st, 2020 and synthesis of the scientific literature of 2020.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 infection significantly increased mortality risk and the burden of disability in most survivors, regardless of symptom severity at onset. The rehabilitation needs of people infected are receiving growing attention, as evidenced by the increasing number of publications, including those addressing the chronic consequences of infection. This rapid living systematic review reports the evidence published in November and December 2020 and summarises the entire body of literature on rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients published in 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This update was performed using the methodology reported by the second edition conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Pedro databases. Papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarised descriptively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search retrieved 4441 studies. After the removal of duplicates and the screening for title and abstract, we retained 105 studies. Of these, we included 54 in the qualitative synthesis of this update. According to OCEBM 2011 levels of evidence table, most studies (64.8%) fall within the category of level 4 evidence. Up to 40.7% of papers included COVID-19 patients in the postacute phase. In 2020, our rapid living systematic review included 230 studies; most of these (73.9%) were level 4 studies, 25.7% were level 3, and only one study was level 2. The evidence level improved over time. While most studies (44.8%) included patients with acute COVID-19, we observed a gradual increase in the number of reports about chronic symptoms and the long-term consequences of the infection. CONCLUSIONS: The update of the rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field demonstrates an increase in the level of evidence of studies addressing the rehabilitation needs associated with COVID-19 infection. Although most studies are still case reports/series, there is a trend towards conducting prospective investigations of the early natural history of the disease (first months post onset). High-quality-level studies on the efficacy of rehabilitation, and long-term monitoring of the disease and its sequelae are yet to emerge.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: a rapid living systematic review 2020 by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field. Update as of September 30th, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 outbreak response requires identifying and understanding the long-term consequences of this new pathology and how to manage these. This living systematic review presents the most current and seminal information coming from the scientific literature. It is the monthly update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER Action Steering Committee. The aim of this review was to update the monthly COVID-19 and rehabilitation literature research up to September 30, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review 2020 conducted by Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action was applied. The most important medical databases were searched, and papers related to COVID-19 and rehabilitation were retrieved and summarized descriptively. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The database search retrieved 2526 publications. Duplicates were removed, and 1150 unique records were screened for inclusion. After screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 37 papers were included in the present review. According to OCEBM 2011 levels of evidence table, most studies (78.4%) fall within the level of evidence 4 category, while the remainder (22.6%) are categorized as level of evidence 3. Most studies described patients in acute (51.4%) or subacute (35.0%) phase, while no studies described the chronic consequences of COVID-19. Just one study dealt with rehabilitation interventions regarding COVID-19, and two discussed reorganization of rehabilitative services. CONCLUSIONS: The most recently published COVID-19 research focuses more on describing the clinical presentations and the natural history of the pathology, rather than rehabilitation interventions or service delivery. Studies with high levels of evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions, long-term monitoring, or new organization models remain lacking.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. Update as of August 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: A monthly systematic review update is carried out to maintain the currency of scientific literature on rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing consequences due to the disease and its treatment, as they relate to limitations in functioning of rehabilitation interest. The aim of this study was to provide an updated summary of the available evidence published in August 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An extensive search on the main medical literature databases from August 1st, 2020 to August 31st, 2020 was performed, according to the methodology described in the second edition of the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After removing duplicates, 1136 papers were identified, and 51 studies were finally included. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence Table, they were Level 4 in most cases (76.5%) and Level 3 in the remaining (23.5%). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were not found. Thirty-two studies (62.7%) included COVID-19 patients who were assessed in the acute (20/32) or postacute phases (12/32). The other studies reported data on the impact of COVID-19 infection (7/19) or on the effect of lockdown restrictions (12/19) on subjects with pre-existing health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific literature of August 2020 mainly focused on limitations in functioning of nervous system structure and related functions. Albeit the increased availability of data from analytical studies (both cohort and cross-sectional), there is still a lack of well-conducted Level 2 studies, to improve the knowledge on the effects of rehabilitation in COVID-19 patients.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review. Update as of July 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: This paper is the first update of the second edition of the rapid living systematic review on the latest scientific literature informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing consequences of the disease and its treatment, as they relate to limitations in functioning of rehabilitation interest. The aim of this study was to report data of a systematic search performed on papers published in July 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The methodology described in the second edition of the rapid living systematic review was applied to search eligible papers included in the databases between July 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eight-hundred-ninety-two papers were identified through database searching (after removal of duplicates); of these, only 23 studies were included. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence Table, they were level 3 in 30.5% cases and level 4 in 69.5%. No RCT was found. Nineteen papers studied COVID-19 patients, assessed in the acute (10 studies), post-acute (8 studies) and chronic phase (one study). Four studies reported data on the impact of COVID-19 on subjects with pre-existing health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature production still focuses more on describing all the possible aspects and complications of the pathology than on interventions or new organization models to deal with it. Albeit evidence on handling COVID-19 from a rehabilitative point of view is improving each month, further studies are still mandatory to report the role of rehabilitation in this scenario.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: the Cochrane Rehabilitation 2020 rapid living systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This paper improves the methodology of the first edition of the rapid living systematic review started in April 2020, with the aim to gather and present the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences due to the disease and its treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The Cochrane methodology for a rapid living systematic review was applied. Primary research papers, published from 1 January to 30 June 2020, reporting patients' data, with no limits of study design were included. Studies were categorized for study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning (disability) of rehabilitation interest and type of rehabilitation service involved. Methodological quality assessment was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools, and the level of evidence table (OCEBM 2011) for all the other studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty-six, out of 3703 papers, were included. One paper was of level 2 (RCT), 7 were of level 3 (2 cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies and 3 case-control studies), and 28 papers of level 4 (descriptive studies); 61% of papers reported epidemiological data on clinical presentations, 5 investigated natural history/determining factors, 1 searched prevalence, 2 studies reported on intervention efficacy (though not on harms), and 5 studies looked at health service organization. CONCLUSIONS: Main issues emerging from the review: it is advised to test for COVID-19 people with neurological disorders presenting with symptom changes; dysphagia is a frequent complication after oro-tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU; after discharge, COVID-19 survivors may report persistent restrictive ventilatory deficits regardless of disease severity; there is only sparse and low quality evidence concerning the efficacy of any rehabilitation intervention to promote functional recovery; a substantial increase in resource (staff and equipment) is needed for rehabilitation.

Systematic rapid living review on rehabilitation needs due to COVID-19: update to May 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: This paper adds to the series of systematic rapid living reviews, started in April 2020, to provide the rehabilitation community with updates on the latest scientific literature on rehabilitation needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to present the results of a systematic search performed on papers published from May 1^st to May 31^st, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: An extensive search on the main medical literature databases for articles published (including Epub), in English, from May 1^st to May 31^st, 2020 was performed, according to the methodology already described in the previous 2 rapid reviews, with 2 important improvements: first, we made the search string more comprehensive; second, we relied on accredited terminologies to describe the study designs and report the rehabilitation settings. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Fifty-eight out of 618 articles were finally included for qualitative analysis. The number of primary studies has increased, with respect to the previous months, although still around 60% papers are just expert opinions. Six papers report on the prevalence and /or characteristics of emerging disability after COVID-19, 12 on rehabilitation approaches to COVID-19 patients, up to 25 on the organization of rehabilitation services after COVID-19, 13 papers on the impact of COVID-19 on health conditions of rehabilitative interest and only 2 on late complications due to COVID-19 that may be of rehabilitative interest. CONCLUSIONS: Nowadays, all patients with disability, regardless of COVID-19 infection, are suffering because of restrictions imposed to rehabilitation service delivery. Neurological involvement is often present during acute and postacute stage, conveying the risk of a long-lasting disability. Accordingly, careful neurological monitoring should be granted. Although new therapies are under development, the main gap in the available scientific literature is the lack of high-quality primary studies, so experimental studies on the effects of rehabilitation are still warranted.

Telemedicine from research to practice during the pandemic. "Instant paper from the field" on rehabilitation answers to the COVID-19 emergency.

COVID-19 pandemic is creating collateral damage to outpatients, whose rehabilitation services have been disrupted in most of the European countries. Telemedicine has been advocated as a possible solution. This paper reports the contents of the third Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER) webinar on "experiences from the field" COVID-19 impact on rehabilitation ("Covinars"). It provides readily available, first-hand information about the application of telemedicine in rehabilitation. The experiences reported were very different for population (number and health conditions), interventions, professionals, service payment, and technologies used. Commonalities included the pushing need due to the emergency, previous experiences, and a dynamic research and innovation environment. Lights included feasibility, results, reduction of isolation, cost decrease, stimulation to innovation, satisfaction of patients, families, and professionals beyond the starting diffidence. Shadows included that telemedicine can integrate but will never substitute face-to-face rehabilitation base on the encounter among human beings; age, and technology barriers (devices absence, bad connection and human diffidence) have also been reported. Possible issues included privacy and informed consent, payments, cultural difficulties in understanding that telemedicine is a real rehabilitation intervention. There was a final agreement that this experience will be incorporated by participants in their future services: technology is ready, but the real challenge is to change PRM physicians' and patients' habits, while better specific regulation is warranted.

Systematic rapid "living" review on rehabilitation needs due to COVID-19: update to March 31st, 2020.

INTRODUCTION: The outbreak of COVID-19 epidemics has challenged the provision of health care worldwide, highlighting the main flaws of some national health systems with respect to their capacity to cope with the needs of frail subjects. People experiencing disability due to COVID-19 express specific rehabilitation needs that deserve a systematic evidence-based approach. The aim of this article is to provide the rehabilitation community with updates on the latest scientific literature on rehabilitation needs due to COVID-19. The first rapid "living" review will present the results of a systematic search performed up to March 31st, 2020. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search in PubMed, Pedro, and Google Scholar was performed using the search terms: "COVID-19," "Coronavirus," "severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2," "rehabilitation," "physical therapy modalities," "exercise," "occupational therapy," and "late complications." Papers published up to March 31st, 2020, in English, were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of the 2758 articles retrieved, nine were included in the present review. Four of them are "calls for action", three provide recommendations about rehabilitation interventions in the acute phase, two address the needs of people quarantined at home or with restricted mobility due to the lockdown, and one provides a Core Outcome Set to be used in clinical trials to test the efficacy of health strategies in managing COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: All selected papers were based on previous literature and not on the current COVID-19 pandemic. Main messages included: 1) early rehabilitation should be granted to inpatients with COVID-19; 2) people with restricted mobility due to quarantine or lockdown should receive exercise programs to reduce the risk of frailty, sarcopenia, cognitive decline and depression; 3) telerehabilitation may represent the first option for people at home. Further updates are warranted in order to characterize the emerging disability in COVID-19 survivors and the adverse effects on the health of chronically disabled people.