Cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, no evidence exists on specific treatments for post COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, rehabilitation interventions that are effective for similar symptoms in other health conditions could be applied to people with PCC. With this overview of systematic reviews with mapping, we aimed to describe the Cochrane evidence on rehabilitation interventions proposed for cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression in different health conditions that can be relevant for PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "cognitive impairment," "depressive disorder," "anxiety disorder," their synonyms and variants, and "rehabilitation" in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 3596 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021, and we included 17 on cognitive impairment and 37 on anxiety and depression. For cognitive impairment, we found 7 CSRs on participants with stroke, 3 with cancer, 2 with Parkinson's disease, and one each for five other health conditions. Each intervention improved a different domain, and included exercises, cognitive and attention-specific training, and computerized cognition-based training (from very low to high-quality evidence). For anxiety and depression, we found 10 CSRs including participants with cancer, 8 with stroke, 3 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 2 or 1 each in 11 other health conditions. Exercise training, physical activity and yoga resulted effective in several pathologies (very low- to moderate-quality evidence). In specific diseases, we found effective acupuncture, animal-assisted therapy, aromatherapy, educational programs, home-based multidimensional survivorship programs, manual acupressure massage, memory rehabilitation, non-invasive brain stimulation, pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation (very low- to moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research. They served as the basis for the three recommendations on treatments for these PCC symptoms published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Dysphagia, dysphonia and olfactory disease: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, no evidence exists on specific treatments for post COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, rehabilitation interventions that proved effective for similar symptoms in other health conditions could be applied to people with PCC. With this overview of systematic reviews with mapping, we aimed to describe the Cochrane evidence on rehabilitation interventions proposed for dysphagia, dysphonia and olfactory dysfunction in different health conditions that can be relevant for PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "dysphagia," "swallowing disorder," "dysphonia," "voice disorder," "olfactory dysfunction," "smell changes" and "rehabilitation" in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 170 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021 and 1 was included. It provided data on dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke. Interventions included were acupuncture, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation and behavioral interventions, and swallowing therapy, with very low- to moderate-quality evidence. We did not find any CSR on dysphonia and olfactory disease. CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research. They served as the basis for the three recommendations on treatments for these PCC symptoms published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Dyspnea: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation focuses on impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions being informed by the underlying health condition. In the current absence of direct "evidence on" rehabilitation interventions for people with post COVID-19 condition (PCC), we can search and synthesize the indirect "evidence relevant to" coming from interventions effective on the symptoms of PCC in other health conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) required this information to inform expert teams and provide specific recommendations in their Guidelines. With this overview of reviews with mapping we aimed to synthesize in a map the Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for dyspnea due to PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "dyspnea" and its synonyms in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized all the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 371 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021 and included 15 in this overview. We found eight studies on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two on cancer, and one for bronchiectasis, chronic respiratory disease, cystic fibrosis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Effective interventions included pulmonary rehabilitation, also in combination with exercise training, non-invasive ventilation, upper limb training and multicomponent integrated interventions, with very low- to moderate-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research on dyspnea in adults with PCC. They served as the basis for one recommendation on treatments for dyspnea as a PCC symptom published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Arthralgia: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post-COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation focuses on impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions being informed by the underlying health condition. In the current absence of direct "evidence on" rehabilitation interventions for people with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), we can search and synthesize the indirect "evidence relevant to" coming from interventions effective on the symptoms of PCC in other health conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) required this information to inform expert teams and provide specific recommendations in its Guidelines. With this overview of reviews with mapping we aimed to synthesize the Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for arthralgia due to PCC in a map. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "arthralgia," "joint pain," and "rehabilitation" and their synonyms in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized all the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 200 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021, and included 11 in this overview. They provided data from 7 health conditions, with osteoarthritis (5 studies) being the most studied. Effective rehabilitation interventions included exercise training, transcranial magnetic stimulation, different types of electrical stimulation and Tai chi. The overall quality of evidence was mainly low to very low, and moderate in a few cases. CONCLUSIONS: These results provided the requested information to the WHO and served as the basis for one recommendation on treatments for arthralgia due to PCC in the current Guidelines for clinical practice. These results should be interpreted as a first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for future research.

Fatigue, post-exertional malaise and orthostatic intolerance: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation focuses on impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions being informed by the underlying health condition. In the current absence of direct "evidence on" rehabilitation interventions for people with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), we can search and synthesize the indirect "evidence relevant to" coming from interventions effective for the symptoms of PCC in other health conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) required this information to inform expert teams and provide specific recommendations in their Guidelines. With this overview of reviews with mapping, we aimed to synthesize in a map the Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for fatigue, post-exertional malaise and orthostatic intolerance due to PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "fatigue," "orthostatic intolerance," "rehabilitation" and their synonyms in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 1397 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021, we included 32 for fatigue and 4 for exercise intolerance. They provided data from 13 health conditions, with cancer (11 studies), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (7 studies), fibromyalgia (4 studies), and cystic fibrosis (3 studies) being the most studied. Effective interventions for fatigue included exercise training and physical activities, telerehabilitation and multicomponent and educational interventions. Effective interventions for exercise intolerance included combined aerobic/anaerobic training and integrated disease rehabilitation management. The overall quality of evidence was low to very low and moderate in very few cases. We did not identify CSRs that specifically addressed post-exertional malaise or orthostatic intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research. They served as the basis for the three recommendations on treatments for these PCC symptoms published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

The Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions in Adults with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder during Clinical Rehabilitation: A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: This review examined the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggered by physical injury or medical trauma. It discusses implications in support of rehabilitation management for COVID-19 survivors diagnosed with PTSD. METHODS: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. The authors searched for randomized control trials in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases up to 31 March 2021. RESULTS: Five studies (n = 459) met the inclusion criteria. Each study measured a different comparison of interventions. The certainty of the evidence was judged to be very low for all outcomes. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptom reduction was found to be in favor of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Cognitive function improvements were observed in favor of the cognitive processing therapy control intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is uncertainty about whether behavioral interventions are effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and improving functioning and quality of life when the disorder is triggered by a physical or medical trauma rather than a psychological trauma. Further research should investigate their efficacy in the context of rehabilitation management and gather evidence on this population.

The Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions in Adults with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder during Clinical Rehabilitation: A Rapid Review

Background: This review examined the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggered by physical injury or medical trauma. It discusses implications in support of rehabilitation management for COVID-19 survivors diagnosed with PTSD. Methods: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. The authors searched for randomized control trials in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases up to 31 March 2021. Results: Five studies (n = 459) met the inclusion criteria. Each study measured a different comparison of interventions. The certainty of the evidence was judged to be very low for all outcomes. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptom reduction was found to be in favor of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Cognitive function improvements were observed in favor of the cognitive processing therapy control intervention. Conclusions: Overall, there is uncertainty about whether behavioral interventions are effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and improving functioning and quality of life when the disorder is triggered by a physical or medical trauma rather than a psychological trauma. Further research should investigate their efficacy in the context of rehabilitation management and gather evidence on this population.

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.

Effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in adults with multi-organ dysfunction syndrome: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, defined as altered organ function in critically ill patients, is a possible consequence of COVID-19. Investigating the current evidence is therefore crucial in this pandemic, as early rehabilitation could be effective for the functioning of patients with multiple organ failure. This rapid review assesses the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in adults with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted including only randomised control trials, published until 30 November 2020. All databases were investigated and the results synthesized narratively, evaluating the risk of bias and quality of evidence in all included studies. RESULTS: A total of 404 records were identified through database searches. After removal of duplicates 346 articles remained. After screening, 3 studies (90 participants) met the inclusion criteria. All studies reported positive effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on muscle mass preservation compared with no treatment or standard physio-therapy. CONCLUSION: The lack of evidence on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions does not allow any firm conclusion to be drawn. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation might be a possible rehabilitation intervention to prevent muscle volume loss and improve function in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. However, further studies are needed to support these preliminary findings.

Cochrane Rehabilitation: 2020 annual report.

During its fourth year of existence, Cochrane Rehabilitation went on to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in rehabilitation. In 2020, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has made it necessary to alter priorities. In these challenging times, Cochrane Rehabilitation has firstly changed its internal organisation and established a new relevant project in line with pandemic needs: the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation - COVID-19 evidence-based response) action. The aim was to focus on the timely collection, review and dissemination of summarised and synthesised evidence relating to COVID-19 and rehabilitation. Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action has included in 2020 five main initiatives: 1) rapid living systematic reviews on rehabilitation and COVID-19; 2) interactive living evidence map on rehabilitation and COVID-19; 3) definition of the research topics on "rehabilitation and COVID-19" in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) rehabilitation programme; 4) Cochrane Library special collection on Coronavirus (COVID-19) rehabilitation; and 5) collaboration with COVID-END for the topics "rehabilitation" and "disability." Furthermore, we are still carrying on five different special projects: Be4rehab; RCTRACK; definition of rehabilitation for research purposes; ebook project; and a prioritization exercise for Cochrane Reviews production. The Review Working Area continued to identify and "tag" the rehabilitation-relevant reviews published in the Cochrane library; the Publication Working Area went on to publish Cochrane Corners, working more closely with the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) and Cochrane Networks, particularly with Cochrane Musculoskeletal, Oral, Skin and Sensory Network; the Education Working Area, the most damaged in 2020, tried to continue performing educational activities such as workshops in different online meetings; the Methodology Working Area organized the third and fourth Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological (CRM) meetings respectively in Milan and Orlando; the Communication Working Area spread rehabilitation evidences through different channels and translated the contents in different languages.

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.