Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities and physical activities: a cross-section study in Sakaka Aljouf

Maha Alshammari; ALSAYED SHANB; Mohammed Alsubaiei; Enas youssef

doi:10.12688/f1000research.133516.4

Home Browse Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities and physical activities: a cross-section study in Sakaka Aljouf

[version 4; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Previously titled: Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, functional capacities and physical activities: a cross-section study in Sakaka Aljouf

Maha Alshammari¹, ALSAYED SHANB ², Mohammed Alsubaiei², Enas youssef³

PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Cardiac Center Aljouf Region- King Abdulaziz Specialist Hospital, Aljouf Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Sakaka Aljouf, Saudi Arabia
² Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia
³ Professor and chairman of Orthopedic Physical Therapy Department, Faculty of Physical Therapy, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

Maha Alshammari
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

ALSAYED SHANB
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mohammed Alsubaiei
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Enas youssef
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

COVID-19 has serious consequences on different body systems particularly the respiratory system with its impact on pulmonary function, exercise capacities, and physical activities. This study aimed to investigate the long-term effect of COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities, and physical activities in patients with non-severe COVID-19.

Methods

160 individuals were selected to participate in a cross-section study. Group-I: 80 male and female patients with non-severe COVID-19 at least 3 months after the recovery time. Group-II: 80 male and female matched (non-infected with COVID-19) participants. The spirometer, six-minute walk test (6MWT), and International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) were used to assess pulmonary function, exercise capacities, and physical activities respectively. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test normality of data. The Mann–Whitney and independent t-tests were used to compare the significant differences between both groups.

Results

The results show significant differences in FVC & FEV1 of the pulmonary function, exercise capacities, and physical activities of the work & transportations between both COVID-19 and matched groups p-value = (0.001 & 0.001, 0.001 and 0.005 & 0.012) respectively.

Conclusion

Pulmonary function, exercise capacities, and physical activities are negatively influenced by COVID-19 as long-term consequences indicating the need for extended health care, and prescription of proper rehabilitative training programs for non- severe COVID-19 patients whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization. Outcome reflections of the current results raise awareness of physical therapists to the importance of the proper rehabilitative training programs for non-severe COVID-19 patients.

Keywords

COVID-19, Pulmonary Function, Physical Activities, Exercise capacities

Corresponding author: ALSAYED SHANB

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Alshammari M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Alshammari M, SHANB A, Alsubaiei M and youssef E. Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities and physical activities: a cross-section study in Sakaka Aljouf [version 4; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:809 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.4) First published: 11 Jul 2023, 12:809 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.1) Latest published: 04 Mar 2024, 12:809 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.5)

Revised Amendments from Version 3

The amendment in version 3 of our manuscript included the functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is changed to without oxygen support, figure -1 was updated, and the word of drop was removed, the mean & SD was replaced with median and IQR in all tables as the variables are non-normal distributed. The writing style of confidence intervals was corrected in table 3, also table 4 was cancelled as it is a repeat of data.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Asir John Samuel and Vencita Priyanka Aranha
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal

Introduction

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which began spreading on 31 December 2019 and had spread globally in the first months of 2020.¹ Although many patients with COVID-19 do not suffer from any symptoms and recover spontaneously without medical interventions, one in every six patients develops breathing difficulties and becomes seriously ill.¹ Until 29 September 2022, there had been 613,942,561 confirmed cases, including 6,520,263 deaths worldwide due to COVID-19.² Public health was forced to take specific protocols to prevent rapid spread of pandemic, and its associated economic crisis.³ Tens of millions lost their jobs and increased poverty levels.⁴ Consumption, investments,⁵ work absenteeism, productivity, and hospitality sectors all impacted negatively on income and supply.⁵^,⁶ COVID-19 affects people of all ages and seriously impacts different body systems.⁷

Post-COVID-19 syndrome means the sequelae that develop during or after a SARS-CoV-2 infection and persist for more than 12 weeks.⁸ It encompasses multi-organ sequelae beyond the acute phase which ranges from physical and cognitive abnormalities to functional limitations, exercise impairments and deterioration of quality of life.⁹^,¹⁰ A massive number of humans suffered from multi-organ impairments in extra-pulmonary tissues.¹¹^,¹² The pulmonary and cardiovascular systems are the most important impacted organs with their reflections on patient’s physical activities, and quality of life. Similar coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV) caused its impairments for two years which are expected to occur for the survivors of COVID-19.¹³ COVID-19 causes marked impairments in the diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), total lung capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity ratio (FEV₁/FVC), restrictions in small airways,¹⁴ ^–¹⁶ restrictive and obstructive patterns of the pulmonary function,¹⁵ low quality of life¹⁵^,¹⁶ consolidation patterns,¹⁷ restrictions in both the two minute walking test (2MWT) and FVC,¹⁷ respiratory muscles dysfunction and lung fibrosis,¹⁸^,¹⁹ in addition to formation of pneumocytes.²⁰ Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and SARS are the two previous viral infection outbreaks like the current COVID-19.²⁰ Abnormalities of the lung function are classified to obstructive pattern, restrictive pattern, and small airway disease.²¹ COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities are more vulnerable to hospitalization,²²^,²³ and for developing neurological events, e.g., acute cerebrovascular disease, conscious disturbance, and skeletal muscle injury.¹⁹ Even though vaccination against COVID-19 can prevent hospitalization and severe infection. It has been adequate protection only against some long-COVID-19 symptoms, including cognitive dysfunction, sleeping disorders, and kidney diseases.²⁴ Even after recovery of survivors of COVID-19, almost 10-20% may suffer long-term consequences including fatigue, dyspnea, and impairments in both cognitive and daily functions.⁷ Also, COVID-19 patients may be complicated with bladder dysfunction, severe urinary symptoms,²⁵^–²⁷ higher liver enzymes,²⁸ gastrointestinal symptoms,²⁹ psychotic disorders³⁰ and poly-neuromyopathy.³¹

However, there were restrictions in the physical performance, activities, and the detected impairments in sleep quality at 12 weeks post-COVID-19 infection.³² Although time of walk improved significantly at the sixth month of recovery it still reduced on comparison with that spent before COVID-19 for the same patients,³³ also, the physical activities and the one-minute standing test were impaired at discharge of patients with COVID-19.³⁴ Evidence of persistent physiological and radiographic changes is available in most patients who recovered from severe COVID-19.³⁵ Patients with persistent dyspnea had several abnormalities during the 6MWT e.g., greater restriction on spirometry, reduced exercise capacity and increased exertional symptoms.³⁶ As a result of wide variations in epidemiology and treatment for long-term sequels of COVID-19, it is considered a new area of research.⁷^,³⁷^,³⁸ There is need for more studies to investigate effects of COVID-19, particularly its long-term impact on the pulmonary function, physical activities, and exercise capacities. The authors mainly concentrated in previous studies on investigating critical hospitalized survivors and who experienced severe infection,¹⁹^,³⁹^–⁴¹ whereas Non-severe COVID-19 survivors might be ignored during the pandemic so; further research is recommended particularly for those patients with mild and moderate degree of COVID-19.³²^,³³ Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate long-term effect of COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities and physical activities in patients with non-severe degree after three months from recovery time.

Methods

Design of the study

A cross-section study.

Sample size

The sample size was calculated by using an online tool ( http://www.stat.ubc.ca/~rollin/stats/ssize/n2a.html). It was based on the FEV₁% (μ1 = 94.2, μ2 = 100.3, sigma/SD = 13.1, in the previous study.⁴² The significant value is 0.05 with a power of .80.

Ethical approval

All procedures of the study were approved by the Ethics Research Committee of the Institutional Review Board of Imam Abdualrahman bin Faisal University (IRB-PGS-2021-03-427). Also, by the Research Ethics Committee in Qurayyat Health Affairs, Ministry of Health, Project no: 083, Saudi Arabia. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki at the out-patient clinic of the Physical Therapy Department of King Abdulaziz Specialist Hospital in Sakaka Aljouf, Ministry of Health- Saudi Arabia between September 2021 to June 2022. Prior to participation, all participants signed a consent form, and they were informed that the collected data would be submitted for publication.

Subjects

600 participants were screened from the department of pulmonology and out-patient clinic of the Physical Therapy Department, King Abdulaziz Specialist Hospital in Sakaka Aljouf. They were assigned to, COVID-19 group: 80 male and female patients (After physical examination, inspection and analysis and reports of analysis checking by pulmonologist) with confirmed non-severe COVID-19 at least 3 months from recovery time. Recovery is being free from fever and respiratory symptoms for at least 3 days followed by two negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests 24 hours apart, or if PCR was not available, resolution of the clinical manifestations for 3 days and at least 10 days have passed from the appearance of the first symptom.⁴³ Matched Group: 80 male and female matched participants (non-infected with COVID-19, their PCR was negative for COVID-19, no signs, or symptoms of infection) who were invited to participate as control group.

Inclusion criteria

Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 after three months from recovery time and matched non-infected with COVID-19 participants, their age ranges from 25 to 55 years.

Exclusion criteria

Patients with severe COVID-19, and who have acute infections, recent surgeries, unstable cardiovascular conditions, chronic respiratory diseases, neurological disease, mental illness, critically ill patients with intubation any other medical condition that contradict with the conduction of this research, who cannot walk, and smokers, critically ill patients with intubation in addition any other medical condition that contradict with the conduction of this research were excluded.⁴⁴^–⁴⁶

Procedure of the study

Demographic data were recorded including weight, body mass index (BMI), oxygen saturation, heart rate, blood pressure, comorbidities, admission to the intensive care unit or hospitalization, severity degree of infection was determined with pulmonologist according to the classification of WHO progression scale.⁴⁷ This scale classifies severity of COVID-19 infection into five categories: 1-Uninfected with a 0 score, 2-Mild disease with a score ranging from 1-3, patient is asymptomatic with detected viral RNA or symptomatic with assistant needed, 3-Moderate disease with a score ranging from 4-5, patient is hospitalized and not need for oxygen therapy or hospitalized and need for oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation, 4-Severe disease with a score ranging from 6-9, patient is hospitalized and need for oxygen therapy by non-invasive ventilation or high flow, 5-Dead with score 10.

All participants underwent these outcome measures:

a) Pulmonary function was measured by using the Spirobank II spirometer (Medical International Research, USA, Inc., www.spirometry.com). It is a validated device used for diagnosing and evaluating pulmonary diseases.⁴⁸ The lung function are classified according to the American Thoracic Society as: normal, if both FVC and the FEV₁/FVC ratio are in the normal range; obstructive pattern, if FEV₁/FVC ratio is <70% of the normal predicted value and FEV₁ <80% of the predicted; restrictive pattern, if FEV₁/FVC ratio is ≥70% of the normal predicted value, and the total lung capacity <80% of the predicted value. If total lung capacity is not available, a reduction in the FVC <80% of predicted is considered as a restrictive pattern, small airway disease, if forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF_25-75%) is <65% of predicted value.²¹ All participants underwent the test according to guidelines of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS).⁴⁶ The obtained parameters are FVC, FEV₁, FEV₁/FVC ratio, FEF_25-75%, and peak expiratory flow (PEF). All measurements of pulmonary function testing (PFT) were expressed as absolute and percentage of predicted normal values (% predicted), the percentage of predicted normal values was calculated automatically based on age, sex, height, and ethnicity.⁴⁹ Each participant completed three accepted maneuvers and the highest value was recorded and used in the statistical analysis.
b) Physical activity was measured by using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-Arabic version) which is valid and reliable.⁵⁰ It assesses physical activity during the last seven days throughout four domains: work-related physical activity, transportation-related physical activity, domestic and yard, and leisure time physical activity. Every participant was asked to answer each question in all domains. The scores are calculated for each domain and expressed as metabolic equivalent minutes per week (MET-minutes/week). The total physical activity score is calculated by summating the total scores for all domains, the physical activity score is classified into high, moderate, and low as 3000,600 and <300 MET minutes/week respectively.⁵¹
c) Exercise capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: It is valid and reliable, and it has been approved to estimate sub-maximal exercise performance, daily physical activities,⁵² and endurance in older adults⁵³^–⁵⁵ and post-COVID-19 patients over 18 years.³⁹ Each participant was asked to walk independently with his or her comfortable footwear on a flat, well illuminated, non-slippery ground surface in corridor 30-meters space for 6 minutes as fast as possible without oxygen support, the results were expressed in meters.⁵²
d) Pulse oximeter is a valid and reliable device; a wearable wrist oxygen pulse oximeter was well fastened in the index and wrist of the non-dominant hand to detect oxygen saturation and heart rate for every participant during 6MWT.⁵⁶
e) Modified Borg Scale of Dyspnea is a scale rated from 0 to 10. It was used to monitor severity of self-reported breathlessness during the 6MWT.⁵⁷

Statistical analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software (version 25) and were tested for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Group comparisons were done using independent t-test and Mann–Whitney test for normal and not normal data distribution respectively. The Chi-squared test was used to compare the categorical variables. The COVID-19 group was divided into pre-6 months and post-6 months sub-groups to determine time effect on the associated consequences, these two sub-groups were compared descriptively with the matched group by using the confidence intervals. Statistical significance was set at P-value <0.05 with a confidence interval of 95%.

Results

80 male and female patients with confirmed diagnosis of mild and moderate COVID-19 (COVID group), and another 80 matched participants non-infected with COVID-19 (Matched group) were recruited in this study (Figure 1). Demographic and clinical characteristics of both groups including age, gender, BMI, and comorbidities were matched (P-value > 0.05) (Table 1). There were significant differences in oxygen saturation between both groups (P-value = 0.003), 30 patients (37.5%) had comorbidities. The most common co-morbidities were obesity (31.25%), hypertension (2.5%) & diabetes (3.75%). Severity degree of infection was 32 patients (40%) with mild, and 48 patients (60%) with moderate, 25 patients (31%) had restrictive pattern, and 13 participants (16%) in matched group, (P-value = 0.026), 17 patients (21%) with dyspnea & 48 patients (60%) were hospitalized (Table 1).

Figure 1. Flow chart of the participants’ recruitment.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics data of recruited participants.

Variables		COVID-19 group (Median ± IQR)	Matched group (Median ± IQR)	P-value
Gender male & female N (%)		M 25 (31.3%) F 55 (68.8%)	M 23 (28.7%) F 57 (71.3%)	0.730^†^a
Age (in years)		45.0 ± 14.5	44.0 ± 20.0	0.333^†^b
Weight in kg		75.0 ± 18.0	75.0 ± 20.25	0.177^†^b
BMI (in kg/m ²)		26.15 ± 7.57	27.55 ± 10.65	0.765^†^b
Comorbidities: N %		30 (37.5%)	31 (38.75%)	0.965^†^a
S_pO2		98.0 ± 1.0	98.0 ± 1.0	0.003*^b
Restrictive pattern N (%)		25 (31%)	13 (16%)	0.026*^a
Overweight N (%)		20 (25%)	17 (21.25%)
Obese N (%)		25 (31.25%)	27 (33.75%)
HTN N (%)		2 (2.5%)	2 (2.5%)
DM N (%)		3 (3.75%)	2 (2.5%)
Time after recovery in months		8.0 ± 5.0
Severity degree of infection N (%)	Mild	32 (40%)
Severity degree of infection N (%)	Moderate	48 (60%)
In-patients in ICU N (%)		12 (15%)
Hospitalization N (%)		48 (60%)
Dyspnea N (%)		17 (21%)
Affected smell and taste N (%)		8 (10%)

a Chi-squared.

b Mann–Whitney test.

† Non-significantly differences (P-value > 0.05).

* Significantly differences (P-value < 0.05).

After 3 months from time of recovery the results of pulmonary function test show significant reductions in mean values of the FVC%, FEV₁%, FEV₁/FVC Ratio%, FEF _25-75%, and PEF% in COVID-19 group on comparison with matched group (P-value <0.05) (Table 2). Also, the mean values of distance of the 6MWT and four domains of physical activity including work, transportation, domestic & yard, and leisure & free time reduced significantly in COVID-19 group on comparison with matched group (P-value <0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2. Mean values of PFT, 6MWT and IPAQ of COVID-19 and control matched groups.

Variables	COVID-19 group (Median ± IQR)	Matched group (Median ± IQR)	P-value
FVC (Liters)	3.18 ± 0.54	3.51 ± 1.32	<0.001*^b
FVC % pred (%)	85.0 ± 11	90.0 ± 18.75	<0.001*^b
FEV₁ (Liters)	2.81 ± 0.61	3.11 ± 0.81	0.001*^c
FEV₁ % pred (%)	87.50 ± 12	93.0 ± 19.5	0.001*^b
FEV₁/FVC ratio (Liters)	83.55 ± 7.28	85.25 ± 8.78	0.007*^b
FEV₁/FVC ratio % pred (%)	99.0 ± 11	103.0 ± 17.0	0.001*^b
FEF_25-75% (Liters)	3. 41 ± 1.11	3.54 ± 1.32	0.038*^b
FEF_25-75% % pred (%)	91.5 ± 19.0	103.0 ± 35.25	0.001*^b
PEF (Liters)	6.0 ± 1.75	6.45 ± 1.63	0.009*^b
PEF % pred (%)	99.0 ± 25.75	103.5 ± 28.75	0.011*^b
6MWT D	366.0 ± 81.5	410.0 ± 54.5	<0.001*^c
PA of work	693 ± 1650	1116 ± 3155	0.005*^b
PA of transportations	0 ± 198	49.5 ± 346	0.012*^b
PA of domestic and yard	630.0 ± 1170	1260.0 ± 1197	0.011*^b
PA of leisure and free time	346.5 ± 720	756 ± 1490	0.002*^b

b Mann Whitney test was used to determine significant differences between two groups for not normal distributed variables.

c Independent t-test was used to determine significant differences between two groups for normal distributed variables.

* Significantly difference P-value < 0.05. FEF _25-75% of pred: forced expiratory flows at 25-75% of FVC percentage of predicted, FEV₁% of pred: Forced expiratory volume in the first second percentage of predicted, FEV₁/FVC% of pred: forced expiratory volume in the first second and forced vital capacity ratio percentage of predicted, FVC% of pred: forced vital capacity percentage of predicted, PEF% of pred: peak expiratory flow percentage of predicted, 6MWT: Six minute walking test. IPAQ: international physical activities questionnaire, PA: physical activity.

The COVID-19 group was divided into pre-6 months and post-6 months sub-groups to investigate the time effect on post-COVID-19 consequences. The results of pulmonary function, four domains of the IPAQ and 6MWT of COVID-19, pre-6 months and post-6 months groups were descriptively compared by using the confidence intervals at 95% (Table 3).

Table 3. Confidence intervals values of PFT, 6MWT and IPAQ for pre-6 months, post-6 months and matched groups.

Variables	Pre-6-months (lower ; upper) CI at 95%	Post-6 months (lower ; upper) CI at 95%	Matched group (lower ; upper) CI at 95%
FVC % pred	(−0. 34 ; 0.1)	(−0.35 ; 0.02)	(−10.38 ; −3.75)
FEV₁ % pred	(−0.78 ; 0.14)	(−0.78 ; −0.15)	(−12.53 ; −4.19)
FEV₁/FVC ratio % pred	(−0.76 ; 5.26)	(−0.57 ; 5.08)	(−9.43 ; −3.32)
FEF_25-75% pred	(−0.7 ; 0.21)	(−0.73 ; 0.24)	(−16.84 ; −3.73)
PEF % pred (%)	(0.32 ; 1.15)	( 0.32 ; 1.15)	(−12.26 ; −2.1)
6MWT D	(−37.91 ; 5.81)	(−39.18 ; 7.08)	(−53.35 ; −17.54)
PA of work	(−1368.8 ; 373.9)	(−1319.3 ; 324.4)	(−1395.1 ; −108.75)
PA transportations	(−72.44 ; 71.94)	(−74.7 ; 74.2)	(−185.69 ; −43.56)
PA domestic & yard	(−201.34 ; 426.1)	(−194.3 ; 419.04)	(−775.71 ; −179.04)
PA leisure & free time	(−258.5 ; 171.9)	(−265.4 ; 178.84)	(−864.46 ; 305.49)

The results of pulmonary function, domains of the IPAQ and the 6MWT distance showed non-significant differences on comparison of pre 6 months with the post 6 months groups (except the predicted FVC P-value <0.05).

The spearman’s correlations with the severity of infection showed positive correlations between 6 MWT, physical activity transportation, and physical activity domestic & yard (r = 0.005, 0.01 & 0.03) respectively and positive correlation between FEF_a & FEF_25-75 (r = 0.042), While the results show negative correlations between BMI, physical activity transportation and leisure & free time (r = 0.015, 0.003 & 0.012) respectively whereas presence of positive correlation between 6MWT distance & FEV₁ (r = 0.014). In addition to time factor the results show negative correlations between BMI & both physical activity of work and transportation (r = 0.015 & 0.027 and 0.001 & 0.046) in pre 6 months and post 6 months subgroup respectively.

Discussion

COVID-19 is a new rapidly spreading epidemic, its initial symptoms may progress to long-term consequences. Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreases in exercise capacity, and physical activities within the average time 7.9 months after recovery time. Sights of researchers were attracted to investigate them all over the world. Our findings agree with the results of Abdallah et al, Lorent et al & Salem et al they found significant reductions in mean values of FVC, FVC% predicted, FEV₁, PEF, PEF% predicted at the third month of recovery on comparison with matched participants.⁴⁰^,⁵⁸^,⁵⁹ Restrictive pattern of impairments was observed in 50% of COVID-19 patients’ sample of Salem et al.⁴⁰ while it was 31% in the current study. A greater percent of restrictive pattern in findings of Salem et al.⁴⁰ may be due to their patients’ sample was COVID-19 patients with pneumonia or hospitalized (more complicated), whereas the current patients’ sample was selected with mild and moderate degree of infection. The current findings of pulmonary function are consistent with the findings of previous studies. Salem et al found significant reductions in pulmonary function of the survivors of COVID-19 after three months of discharge on comparison with matched controls.⁴⁰ Also, Abdallah et al. found reductions in the measured FVC, total lung capacity (TLC), and DLCO at the third month in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.⁵⁸ In contrast to our results the findings of Lerum et al. show normal pulmonary outcomes including lung function, 6MWT distance, oxygen saturation, dyspnea prevalence measured at the third month after hospital discharge.⁶⁰ Also, Eksombatchai et al. found non-significant differences in the pulmonary function of mild and moderate survivors COVID-19 with pneumonia.⁶¹ The authors highlighted the absence of PFT data for their patients’ samples prior to occurrence of COVID-19.⁴⁰^,⁶²

The underlying mechanisms for COVID-19 multiple findings may be due to acute lung injury with diffuse alveolar damage which is associated with fibrotic changes and microthrombi in the pulmonary vasculature.⁶³ The restrictive impairment of the lung function may be caused by fibrotic changes in the lung and increase proinflammatory cytokines which recruit fibroblasts resulting in lung fibrosis.⁶⁴ The decline in pulmonary function results from the respiratory muscles fatigue as a significant improvement of PFT after pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19 survivors,⁶⁵ the results of PFT are also influenced by several factors e.g., sex and body type.⁶⁶

Our findings show significant reductions in measured parameters of pulmonary function, 6MWT distance and domains of physical activities in patients with COVID-19 after 3 months, on comparison with the matched group. There are progressive improvements on comparison of pre with post 6 months sub-groups as a time effect and being non-significant may be due to patients’ sample of pre 6 months was not the same patients’ sample of post 6 months. The current results are consistent with findings of Magdy et al. determined lower limits in lung function (<80%) and non-statistically significant differences in the pulmonary function at 3 and 6 months post-infection.⁶⁷ Whereas existing significant improvements at one year follow-up.⁵⁹ This finding does not contradict with our results as they compared the same patients at 3 months, 6 months and after one year not the case in the current study where the patients’ sample was descriptively compared at pre 6 months and after 6 months to matched control. Also, Zhang et al. found 20% of the survivors of COVID-19 had FEV₁/FVC below 70% of predicted values at the eighth month.⁶²

The current results contradict the findings of Wu et al. as they found significant increases in pulmonary function at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month interval measures post-infection (time effect)³⁵ this may be also due to the authors did the interval assessments for the same COVID-19 patients. They found high rate of dyspneic patients (81%) measured at the third month whereas it was 21% in the current study. This may be their sample included only severe COVID-19 patients whereas the sample in the current study included both mild and moderate degree of COVID-19. Also, Madrid-Mejía et al. determined improvements in PFTs at the sixth month of infection compared to the results of the same participants at the third month after infection.⁶⁸ The variations in the time of evaluation in different studies may explain the differences in the results.¹⁵^,⁴⁰^,⁶⁹

In our study, despite the result of the exercise capacities (6MWT distance) show significant reductions in the COVID-19 group after 3 months, from recovery on comparison with the matched control, there are non-significant increases at both pre and post 6 months. This finding is consistent with the results of Magdy et al. who determined significant reductions in the 6MWT results of the survivors of COVID-19 on comparison with the normative data,⁴⁰ whereas a significant improvement was determined in the 6MWT at the sixth month in regarding the third-month follow-up.⁴⁰ They referred their findings to the extended period of hospital stay and extra usage of corticosteroids which could influence the muscles resulting in muscle wasting and myopathy.⁴⁰^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹ Also, Calabrese et al. demonstrated significant reductions in the FVC %, DLCO, low oxygen saturation (Sp_O2) (>90%) during the 6MWT with higher dyspnea.⁴¹ In addition, Raman et al. found significant reductions in the distance of the 6MWT for COVID-19 patients on comparison with controls.⁷² They referred this limited exercise capacity to muscle wasting that caused by the catabolic state resulting from severe illness, and potentially inflammation.⁷² ^–⁷⁴ While Abdallah et al. reflected the persistence of breathlessness and limitation in exercise capacity at the third month to the residual defects in TLC.⁵⁸ In addition, the recovery of the physical function within the first 6 months of patients after SARS-COV was incomplete as it lasts for one to two years.¹³ In addition, Magdy et al. found significant increases in the 6MWT distance at the 6-month follow-up.⁶⁷ Accordingly, the lower results of the 6MWT distance may be attributed to the higher BMI, and high number of female participants in the current study. The distance of the 6MWT is negatively influenced by sex and body type.⁵² On contrary to the current findings Wu et al determined significant improvements in the 6MWT at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month interval measures post-infection.³⁵

Our results agree with the findings of Belli et al. they found patients with COVID-19 suffer from impairments in physical functions and fitness, as 33.3% of patients had impaired physical fitness, and 17.5% with moderate scores in activities of daily livings performance.⁷⁵ Cao et al. also stated that performance in the 6MWT was significantly lower in post COVID-19 patients than in health controls.⁷⁶ Lower performance in the 6MWT was reported in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 compared to patients with mild/moderate disease at baseline.⁷⁷ On contrary to the results of the current study the findings of Lerum et al. they concluded non-significant differences in the results of the 6MWT between ICU and non-ICU groups and Eksombatchai et al. they found statistically typical results for the 6MWT among three groups, while the severe infection group showed lower results when compared with the mild and moderate infection groups but not statistically significant.⁶⁰^,⁶¹ The results of oxygen saturation show non- significant differences (p = 0.201) among groups for both pre and post 6MWT. They referred the reductions in their results to the higher BMI and older age in the severe group.⁶⁰^,⁶¹

In the current study, the results of the IPAQ significantly reduced in all domains in the COVID-19 survivors’ group on comparison with the matched group after 3 months. The current findings are supported with the results of Tanriverdi et al. found poor physical activities and impaired hand grip power at least three months of survivors of COVID-19.³² Paneroni et al. who determined impaired physical activities at the discharge time.³⁴ As a result of improvements in physical activities with time effects on comparing survivors of COVID-19 of pre and post 6 months with the matched controls, descriptive differences were determined in some IPAQ domains. Also, the current findings supported the findings of Delbressine et al. who found significant improvements in physical activities in the survivors of COVID-19 at the sixth month compared with results at the third month post-infection.³³ In the current study, the IPAQ questionnaire was used to assess the physical activities during the last seven days only, which may not give an accurate perception of the physical activities as it could be affected by other factors e.g., the work domain could be lower for some participants because they were on vacation for the last seven days. The transportation domain may be lower for some patients because they must use vehicles due to the hot weather. Some participants did not have gardens or backyards, which reduces their domestic and yard scores. Other participants may have lower leisure time domain scores because they did not feel well to walk or did exercise during the last seven days in convalescent stage. Although the current results of outcome measures show significant reductions in pulmonary function, physical activities, and exercise capacity after 3 months, on comparison to matched participants there are general progressive improvements as time effects but still patients with COVID-19 need to extend their health care and to prescribed proper rehabilitative training programs whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization.

Limitations

There was a lack of data on health conditions of patients prior to contracting COVID-19 so the authors tried to overcome this limitation by including a matched control group, small sample size, usage of simple spirometry approach, lack of DLCO and plethysmography. Despite these limitations, the authors believe that the results of this study contribute to filling a significant knowledge gap about consequences of COVID-19 after 3 months of recovery time.

Recommendations

Further studies to investigate effectiveness of COVID-19 long-term complications and follow-up for patients with different severity of infections and effectiveness of individualized comprehensive rehabilitative programs for such patients.

Conclusion

Pulmonary function, exercise capacities, and physical activities are negatively influenced by COVID-19 as long-term consequences indicating the need for extended health care, and prescription of proper rehabilitative training programs for those patients whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization. Gaining the deepest knowledge and awareness that enables physical therapists how to tailor the appropriate rehabilitative training programs for non-severe COVID-19 patients.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Sensory perception, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23153540.v1.⁷⁸

This project contains the following underlying data:

• BASE DE DATOS EVALUACIÓN SENSORIAL 24 05 2023.xls (Data for tastings carried out with students. The samples were 4 cereal bars made with cereal grains and with different percentages of ant flour.)

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Head of the Physical Therapy Department, Dean of scientific research in IAU, the Ministry of Health, Aljouf health affairs, and King Abdul-Aziz Specialist Hospital, for their assistance in conducting this research.

References

1. World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): how is it transmitted?2021. Reference Source
2. World Health Organization: WHO coronavirus dashboard.2022. 29 Sep. 2022. Reference Source
3. World Bank: The economic impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. (Accessed 1 Nov. 2022). Reference Source
4. Center of Budget and Policy Priorities: The COVID-19 economy’s effects on food, housing, and employment hardships.16 Nov. 2022. Reference Source
5. Ahmed I, Medabesh AM, Mehrez KH, et al.: Socioeconomic spillovers of COVID-19: Case of Saudi Arabia. Kybernetes. 2021; 52: 1070–1093. Publisher Full Text
6. Pak A, Adegboye OA, Adekunle AI, et al.: Economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: the need for epidemic preparedness. Front. Public Health. 2020; 8: 241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. World Health Organization: Post COVID_19 condition.2022. (Accessed 28 Sep. 2022). Reference Source
8. Boutou AK, Asimakos A, Kortianou E, et al.: Long COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae and management considerations. J. Pers. Med. 2021; 11: 838. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Nalbandian A, Sehgal K, Gupta A, et al.: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat. Med. 2021; 27: 601–615. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. SeeBle J, Waterboer T, Hippchen T, et al.: Persistent symptoms in adult patients 1 Year after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Prospective Cohort Study.5 July 2021.
11. Zhang H, Penninger J, Li Y, et al.: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med. 2020; 46(4): 586–590. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Ochani R, Asad A, Yasmin F, et al.: COVID-19 pandemic: from origins to outcomes. A comprehensive review of viral pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnostic evaluation, and management. Infez. Med. 2021; 29(1): 20–36. PubMed Abstract
13. Rooney S, Webster A, Paul L: Systematic review of changes and recovery in physical function and fitness after severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus infection: implications for COVID-19 rehabilitation. Phys. Ther. 2020; 100(10): 717–1729.
14. Mo X, Jian W, Su Z, et al.: Abnormal pulmonary function in COVID-19 patients at time of hospital discharge. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 55(6): 2001217. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Sanchez-Ramirez D, Normand K, Zhaoyun Y: Long-term impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Biomedicines. 2021; 9(8): 900. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Van Der Sar-Van Der Brugge S, Talman S, Boonman-De Winter L: Pulmonary function and health-related quality of life after COVID-19 pneumonia. Respir. Med. 2021; 176: 106272. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Fumagalli A, Misuraca C, Bianchi A, et al.: Pulmonary function in patients surviving COVID-19 pneumonia. Infection. 2020; 50(4): 1019–1022. Publisher Full Text
18. Frija-Masson J, Debray MP, Gilbert M, et al.: Functional characteristics of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia at 30 days post-infection. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 56(2): 2001754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Mao L, Jin H, Wang M, et al.: Neurologic manifestations of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Neurol. 2020; 77(6): 683–690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, et al.: Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020; 8(4): 420–422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, et al.: Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur. Respir. J. 2005; 26(5): 948–968. Publisher Full Text
22. Potus F, Mai V, Lebret M, et al.: Novel insights on the pulmonary vascular consequences of COVID-19. Am. J. Phys. Lung Cell. Mol. Phys. 2020; 319(2): l277–l288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Judson G, Kelemen B, Njoroge J: Cardiovascular implications and therapeutic considerations in COVID-19 infection. Cardiology and Therapy. 2020; 9(2): 293–305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Gao P, Liu J, Liu M: Effect of COVID-19 vaccines on reducing the risk of long COVID in the real world: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(19): 12422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Daryanto B, Janardhana A, Purnomo AF: The Effect of Covid-19 Severity on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Manifestations. Med. Arch. 2022 Apr; 76(2): 127–130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Lamb LE, Dhar N, Timar R, et al.: COVID-19 inflammation results in urine cytokine elevation and causes COVID-19 associated cystitis (CAC). Med. Hypotheses. 2020; 145: 10375. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Mumm J, Osterman A, Ruzicka M, et al.: Urinary frequency as a possibly overlooked symptom in COVID-19 patients: does SARS-CoV-2 cause viral cystitis? Eur. Urol. 2020; 78(4): 624–628. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Pan L, Mu M, Yang P, et al.: Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in hubei, china: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020; 115(5): 766–773. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Cheung K, Hung I, Chan P, et al.: Gastrointestinal manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and virus load in fecal samples from a Hong Kong cohort: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2020; 159(1): 81–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
30. Taquet M, Sillett R, Zhu L, et al.: Neurological and psychiatric risk trajectories after SARS-CoV-2 infection: An analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies including 1 284 437 patients. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022; 9(10): 815–827. Publisher Full Text
31. Latronico N, Peli E, Calza S, et al.: Physical, cognitive, and mental health outcomes in 1-year survivors of COVID-19-associated ards. Thorax. 2022; 77(3): 300–303. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Tanriverdi A, Savci S, Kahraman B, et al.: Extrapulmonary features of post-COVID-19 patients: muscle function, physical activity, mood, and sleep quality. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2022; 191(3): 969–975. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
33. Delbressine J, Machado F, Goërtz Y, et al.: The impact of post-COVID-19 syndrome on self-reported physical activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(11): 6017. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
34. Paneroni M, Simonelli C, Saleri M, et al.: Muscle strength and physical performance in patients without previous disabilities recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021; 100(2): 105–109. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Wu X, Liu X, Zhou Y, et al.: 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, and 12-month respiratory outcomes in patients following COVID-19-related hospitalization: a prospective study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021; 9(7): 747–754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Cortes-Telles A, Lopez-Romero S, Figueroa-Hurtado E, et al.: Pulmonary function and functional capacity in COVID-19 survivors with persistent dyspnoea. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2021; 288: 103644. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Desai A, Lavelle M, Boursiquot B, et al.: Long-term complications of COVID-19. Am. J. Phys. Cell Phys. 2022; 322(1): C1–C11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Bandyopadhyay D, Akhtar T, Hajra A, et al.: COVID-19 pandemic: cardiovascular complications and future implications. Am. J. Cardiovasc. Drugs. 2020; 20(4): 311–324. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Huang Y, Tan C, Wu J, et al.: Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pulmonary function in early convalescence phase. Respir. Res. 2020; 21(1): 1–10.
40. Salem A, Al Khathlan N, Alharbi A, et al.: The long-term impact of COVID-19 pneumonia on the pulmonary function of survivors. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021; 14: 3271–3280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
41. Calabrese C, Annunziata A, Flora M, et al.: Three months follow-up of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by pulmonary embolism. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2022; 8: 1366.
42. Ngai J, Ko F, Ng S, et al.: The long-term impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on pulmonary function, exercise capacity and health status. Respirology. 2010; 15(3): 543–550. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. Bhimraj A, Morgan RL, Shumaker AH, et al.: Infectious diseases society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020; 27(10). Publisher Full Text
44. Giannitsi S, Bougiakli M, Bechlioulis A, et al.: 6-minute walking test: a useful tool in the management of heart failure patients. Ther. Adv. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2019; 13: 175394471987008. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
45. Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, et al.: An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2014; 44(6): 1428–1446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Graham BL, Steenburggen I, Miller MR, et al.: Standardization of spirometry 2019 update. An official American thoracic society and European respiratory society technical statement. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019; 200(8): e70–e88. Publisher Full Text
47. Marshall J, Murthy S, Diaz J, et al.: A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020; 20(8): e192–e197. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
48. Degryse J, Buffels J, Van Dijck Y, et al.: Accuracy of office spirometry performed by trained primary-care physicians using the MIR Spirobank hand-held spirometer. Respiration. 2012; 83: 543–552. Publisher Full Text
49. Quanjer P, Stanojevic S, Cole T, et al.: (Mult)i-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3–95-yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur. Respir. J. 2012; 40(6): 1324–1343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
50. Helou K, El Helou N, Mahfouz M, et al.: Validity and reliability of an adapted Arabic version of the long international physical activity questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2018; 18(1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text
51. The IPAQ Group: Guidelines for data processing and analysis of the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ) - short and long forms.2005. Reference Source
52. American Thorax Society Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories: ATS statement: Guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002; 166(1): 111–117. Publisher Full Text
53. Enright PL: The six-minute walk test. Respir. Care. 2003; 48(8): 784–785.
54. Rikli R, Jones C: The reliability and validity of a 6-minute walk test as a measure of physical endurance in older adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 1998; 6(4): 363–375. Publisher Full Text
55. Enright PL, Sherrill DL: Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998; 158(5): 1384–1387. Publisher Full Text
56. Buekers J, Theunis J, De Boever P, et al.: Wearable finger pulse oximetry for continuous oxygen saturation measurements during daily home routines of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD over one week: observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019; 7(6): e12866. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
57. Kendrick K, Baxi S, Smith R: Usefulness of the modified 0-10 borg scale in assessing the degree of dyspnea in patients with COPD and asthma. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2000; 26(3): 216–0222. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
58. Abdallah S, Voduc N, Corrales-Medina V, et al.: Symptoms, pulmonary function, and functional capacity four months after COVID-19. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2021; 18(11): 1912–1917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
59. Lorent N, Weygaerde YV, Claeys E, et al.: Prospective longitudinal evaluation of hospitalised COVID-19 survivors 3 and 12 months after discharge. ERJ Open Res. 2022; 8(2): 00004–02022. Publisher Full Text
60. Lerum TV, Aaløkken TM, Brønstad E, et al.: Dyspnoea, lung function and CT findings 3 months after hospital admission for COVID-19. Eur. Respir. J. 2021; 57(4): 2003448. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
61. Eksombatchai D, Wongsinin T, Phongnarudech T, et al.: Pulmonary function and six-minute-walk test in patients after recovery from COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2021; 16(9): e0257040. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
62. Zhang S, Bai W, Yue J, et al.: Eight months follow-up study on pulmonary function, lung radiographic, and related physiological characteristics in COVID-19 survivors. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11(1): 1–13.
63. Haft JW, Atluri P, Ailawadi G, et al.: Adult cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a tiered patient triage guidance statement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020; 160(2): 452–455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
64. McDonald LT: Healing after COVID-19: are survivors at risk for pulmonary fibrosis? Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2021; 320: L257–L265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
65. Liu K, Zhang W, Yang Y, et al.: Respiratory rehabilitation in elderly patients with COVID-19: a randomized controlled study. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2020; 39(101166): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
66. Talaminos Barroso A, Márquez Martín E, Roa Romero LM, et al.: Factors affecting lung function: A Review of Literature. Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition). 2018; 54(6): 327–332. Publisher Full Text
67. Magdy DM, Metwally A, Tawab DA, et al.: Long-term COVID-19 effects on pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health status. Ann. Thorac. Med. 2022; 17(1): 28. Publisher Full Text
68. Madrid-Mejía W, Gochicoa-Rangel L, Padilla P, et al.: Improvement in walking distance lags raise in lung function in post-COVID-19 patients. Arch. Bronconeumol. 2022; 58(3): 261–263. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
69. Torres-Castro R, Vasconcello-Castillo L, Alsina-Restoy X, et al.: Respiratory function in patients post-infection by COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pulmonology. 2020; 27(4): 328–337. Publisher Full Text
70. Lau HMC, Lee EWC, Wong CNC, et al.: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on the physical profile and quality of life. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005; 86(6): 1134–1140. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
71. Ong KC, Ng AK, Lee LU, et al.: Pulmonary function and exercise capacity in survivors of sever acute respiratory syndrome. Eur. Respir. J. 2004; 24(3): 436–442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
72. Raman B, Cassar MP, Tunnicliffe EM, et al.: Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge. Eclinicalmedicine. 2021; 31: 100683. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
73. Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matte A, et al.: Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011; 364(14): 1293–1304. Publisher Full Text
74. Haddad F, Zaldivar F, Cooper DM: IL-6-induced skeletal muscle atrophy. J. Appl. Physiol. 2005; 98(3): 911–917. Publisher Full Text
75. Belli S, Balbi B, Prince I, et al.: Low physical functioning and impaired performance of activities of daily life in COVID-19 patients who survived hospitalisation. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 56(4): 2002096. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
76. Cao J, Zheng X, Wei W, et al.: Three-month outcomes of recovered COVID-19 patients: Prospective observational study. Ther. Adv. Respir. Dis. 2021; 15: 175346662110094. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
77. Anastasio F, Barbuto S, Scarnecchia E, et al.: Medium-term impact of COVID-19 on pulmonary function, functional capacity, and quality of life. Eur. Respir. J. 2021; 58: 2004015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
78. Lozada-Urbano M, Bendezu Ccanto J, Rivera-Lozada O: Sensory perception. Dataset. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 5

VERSION 5 PUBLISHED 11 Jul 2023

Author details Author details

Maha Alshammari
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

ALSAYED SHANB
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Mohammed Alsubaiei
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing

Enas youssef
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (5)

version 5

Revised

Published: 04 Mar 2024, 12:809

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.5

version 4

Revised

Published: 09 Jan 2024, 12:809

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.4

version 3

Revised

Published: 30 Nov 2023, 12:809

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 04 Sep 2023, 12:809

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.2

version 1

Published: 11 Jul 2023, 12:809

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.1

© 2024 Alshammari M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Alshammari M, SHANB A, Alsubaiei M and youssef E. Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities and physical activities: a cross-section study in Sakaka Aljouf [version 4; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 12:809 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.133516.4)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 4

VERSION 4

PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2024

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Feb 2024

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161031.r236426

Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically insignificant.

Reply to the response of the second comment:
Satisfied with the second response

Reply to the response of the third comment:
Though means & standard deviation in all tables was replaced with median & IQR, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile). Moreover, table 2 still has the term, 'Mean values', even though they were represented as median & IQR. Satisfied with other responses for the third comment.

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically ... Continue reading 1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically insignificant.
Response: Your opinion regarding to the addition of extra number of participants than that calculated in the sample size is a new statistical information to me and I am grateful thanks for your valuable comments in my paper, your revision added many valuable information to it. other than my previous response to this point in your comments I have not any other justifications
2-Reply to the response of the second comment:
Satisfied with the second response.
Response: Very thanks for your worthful comments
3-Reply to the response of the third comment:
Though means & standard deviation in all tables was replaced with median & IQR, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile). Moreover, table 2 still has the term, 'Mean values', even though they were represented as median & IQR. Satisfied with other responses for the third comment.
Response: I change the writing style of the interquartile range (IQR) as 25th quartile, 75th quartile in table 1 and table 2
1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically insignificant.
Response: Your opinion regarding to the addition of extra number of participants than that calculated in the sample size is a new statistical information to me and I am grateful thanks for your valuable comments in my paper, your revision added many valuable information to it. other than my previous response to this point in your comments I have not any other justifications
2-Reply to the response of the second comment:
Satisfied with the second response.
Response: Very thanks for your worthful comments
3-Reply to the response of the third comment:
Though means & standard deviation in all tables was replaced with median & IQR, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile). Moreover, table 2 still has the term, 'Mean values', even though they were represented as median & IQR. Satisfied with other responses for the third comment.
Response: I change the writing style of the interquartile range (IQR) as 25th quartile, 75th quartile in table 1 and table 2
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

13 Apr 2024

Author Response

1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically ... Continue reading 1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically insignificant.
Response: Your opinion regarding to the addition of extra number of participants than that calculated in the sample size is a new statistical information to me and I am grateful thanks for your valuable comments in my paper, your revision added many valuable information to it. other than my previous response to this point in your comments I have not any other justifications
2-Reply to the response of the second comment:
Satisfied with the second response.
Response: Very thanks for your worthful comments
3-Reply to the response of the third comment:
Though means & standard deviation in all tables was replaced with median & IQR, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile). Moreover, table 2 still has the term, 'Mean values', even though they were represented as median & IQR. Satisfied with other responses for the third comment.
Response: I change the writing style of the interquartile range (IQR) as 25th quartile, 75th quartile in table 1 and table 2
1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically insignificant.
Response: Your opinion regarding to the addition of extra number of participants than that calculated in the sample size is a new statistical information to me and I am grateful thanks for your valuable comments in my paper, your revision added many valuable information to it. other than my previous response to this point in your comments I have not any other justifications
2-Reply to the response of the second comment:
Satisfied with the second response.
Response: Very thanks for your worthful comments
3-Reply to the response of the third comment:
Though means & standard deviation in all tables was replaced with median & IQR, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile). Moreover, table 2 still has the term, 'Mean values', even though they were represented as median & IQR. Satisfied with other responses for the third comment.
Response: I change the writing style of the interquartile range (IQR) as 25th quartile, 75th quartile in table 1 and table 2
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 29 Jan 2024

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.161031.r236427

Authors justified ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 30 Nov 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 19 Dec 2023

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.159022.r227200

Methods:

Sample size:

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when

Methods:

Sample size:

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".

Results:

Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 11 Jan 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

11 Jan 2024

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples ... Continue reading Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.
Response
1- The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
2-The calculated sample size gives us an estimation of the minimum sample size,so maximizing the sample size is healthy. Sample sizes are calculated to detect the smallest clinically significant difference. to detect the smallest clinically significant difference, it has more than adequate power to detect bigger differences. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/samplesizecalculation.pdf page 17
3-Overestimating the same size could be done to minimize the effects of a few participants' incomplete data which is removed from analysis.

Second comment
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".
Response
The statement is rephrased to
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT without oxygen support.

Third comment
Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?
Response
a-The figure was updated and the word drop out was removed
b- the means & standard deviation in all table was replaced with median & IQR
c- Table 4 as you stated it was canceled and the statements were rephrased
d- the writing style of confidence interval was changed
very thanks for your comments
Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.
Response
1- The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
2-The calculated sample size gives us an estimation of the minimum sample size,so maximizing the sample size is healthy. Sample sizes are calculated to detect the smallest clinically significant difference. to detect the smallest clinically significant difference, it has more than adequate power to detect bigger differences. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/samplesizecalculation.pdf page 17
3-Overestimating the same size could be done to minimize the effects of a few participants' incomplete data which is removed from analysis.

Second comment
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".
Response
The statement is rephrased to
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT without oxygen support.

Third comment
Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?
Response
a-The figure was updated and the word drop out was removed
b- the means & standard deviation in all table was replaced with median & IQR
c- Table 4 as you stated it was canceled and the statements were rephrased
d- the writing style of confidence interval was changed
very thanks for your comments
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 11 Jan 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

11 Jan 2024

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples ... Continue reading Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.
Response
1- The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
2-The calculated sample size gives us an estimation of the minimum sample size,so maximizing the sample size is healthy. Sample sizes are calculated to detect the smallest clinically significant difference. to detect the smallest clinically significant difference, it has more than adequate power to detect bigger differences. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/samplesizecalculation.pdf page 17
3-Overestimating the same size could be done to minimize the effects of a few participants' incomplete data which is removed from analysis.

Second comment
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".
Response
The statement is rephrased to
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT without oxygen support.

Third comment
Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?
Response
a-The figure was updated and the word drop out was removed
b- the means & standard deviation in all table was replaced with median & IQR
c- Table 4 as you stated it was canceled and the statements were rephrased
d- the writing style of confidence interval was changed
very thanks for your comments
Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.
Response
1- The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
2-The calculated sample size gives us an estimation of the minimum sample size,so maximizing the sample size is healthy. Sample sizes are calculated to detect the smallest clinically significant difference. to detect the smallest clinically significant difference, it has more than adequate power to detect bigger differences. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/samplesizecalculation.pdf page 17
3-Overestimating the same size could be done to minimize the effects of a few participants' incomplete data which is removed from analysis.

Second comment
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".
Response
The statement is rephrased to
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT without oxygen support.

Third comment
Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?
Response
a-The figure was updated and the word drop out was removed
b- the means & standard deviation in all table was replaced with median & IQR
c- Table 4 as you stated it was canceled and the statements were rephrased
d- the writing style of confidence interval was changed
very thanks for your comments
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 04 Sep 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 31 Oct 2023

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155029.r210129

Abstract:
Background:

Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".
Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

Methods:

Abstract:
Background:

Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".
Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

Methods:

"Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

Results:

Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

Introduction:

Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.
Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph – Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solution should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

Subjects:

(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

Inclusion criteria:

Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 - Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Exclusion criteria:

Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake. Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.
d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.
Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.
Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used? Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear. If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

Results:

Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.
In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.
Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

Discussion:

Add strengths of the study.

Conclusion:

Conclude regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Armağan A: How to write an introduction section of a scientific article?. Turk J Urol. 2013; 39 (Suppl 1): 8-9 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 30 Nov 2023

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

30 Nov 2023

Author Response

The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

... Continue reading The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

Abstract:

Background:

The words physical activities were only used in the text and the words   physical performance were omitted
“Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Methods:

Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.

The statement was rephrased to 80 male and female matched (non-infected with COVID-19) participants.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Results: Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

The results show significant differences in FVC & FEV₁ of the pulmonary function ,exercise capacities and physical activity of the work &transportations between COVID-19 and matched groups (p-value = 0.001&0.001,0.001and 0.005&0.012) respectively.

Introduction:

Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph- Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solutions should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

The introduction was rephrasing again including 4 paragraphs.
Its length was adjusted as I organize the introduction into 4 paragraphs.
The first one talking about the prevalence and hazards of COVID-19 as this is new research area.
The second and the third included the pathology of COVID-19 and its impacts on different body systems.
The last paragraph or the fourth explains gap of knowledge and objective of the study.
Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
It was done.

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants or number of patients must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
The extra or exceeding number of sample sizes do not conflict with the ethical aspects particularly our study is a cross sectional study the attendance of patients included only two times.
The measured variables do not have any hazards for participants, also are valuable and worthful for patients and matched participants to know their results of their assessments.

Subjects:
(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

After physical examination, inspection and analysis checking by pulmonologist to confirm their diagnosis they were infected with COVID -19, and their conditions are classified as mild and moderate not severe according to WHO severity Scale.

Inclusion criteria:
Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Definition of Mild and moderate COVID-19 was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Exclusion criteria:
Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake.
It was corrected.

Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.
Was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.

The statement is rephrasing with addition of some explaining important words as
Each participant was asked to walk independently with his or her comfortable footwear on a flat, well illuminated ,non-slippery ground surface in corridor 30-meters space for 6 minutes as fast as possible without oxygen inhalation, the results were expressed in meters.

d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.
The statement was rephrased. A wearable wrist oxygen pulse oximeter was well fastened in the index and wrist of non-dominant hand for every participant to measure oxygen saturation during 6MWT.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate

Shapiro Wilk’s test was replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.

It was done.

Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used?
the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among these three groups groups matched group, Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group as the COVID -19 group was divided into two subgroups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group so I used the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among three groups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group and matched group.
After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. and the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

The Mann Whitney test was already used to compare between COVID-group & matched non-COVID-19 group. also The sample size of the pre--6 months and post -6 months sub-groups are almost similar they compared by using Mann-Whitney test.
So finally the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was omitted and table number 5 also was omitted.

Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear.

The COVID-19 group was divided into two sub-groups which are Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group to determine time effect on the recovery of course of COVID-19 as infectious disease.

If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. And the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

Results:
Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.

As the study procedure was done by attendance of participants in two-days first day to determine the proper participants who meet inclusion criteria of the research and taking the demographic data the second day for taking different measurements, some of them are already selected and take his or her demographic data but not attend in the second day for doing measurements.

In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.

The mean and standard deviation was replaced with median and IQR .

Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

It was done as the Kruskal-Wallis’s test output was cancelled and table 5 was deleted.

Discussion:
Add strengths of the study.

Was explained and clarified in different points as rephrasing gap of knowledge, used objective assessment equipment , discussion and conclusion

Conclusion:
regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Was done.

Finally thanks for your worthful comments.
The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

Abstract:

Background:

The words physical activities were only used in the text and the words   physical performance were omitted
“Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Methods:

Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.

The statement was rephrased to 80 male and female matched (non-infected with COVID-19) participants.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Results: Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

The results show significant differences in FVC & FEV₁ of the pulmonary function ,exercise capacities and physical activity of the work &transportations between COVID-19 and matched groups (p-value = 0.001&0.001,0.001and 0.005&0.012) respectively.

Introduction:

Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph- Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solutions should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

The introduction was rephrasing again including 4 paragraphs.
Its length was adjusted as I organize the introduction into 4 paragraphs.
The first one talking about the prevalence and hazards of COVID-19 as this is new research area.
The second and the third included the pathology of COVID-19 and its impacts on different body systems.
The last paragraph or the fourth explains gap of knowledge and objective of the study.
Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
It was done.

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants or number of patients must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
The extra or exceeding number of sample sizes do not conflict with the ethical aspects particularly our study is a cross sectional study the attendance of patients included only two times.
The measured variables do not have any hazards for participants, also are valuable and worthful for patients and matched participants to know their results of their assessments.

Subjects:
(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

After physical examination, inspection and analysis checking by pulmonologist to confirm their diagnosis they were infected with COVID -19, and their conditions are classified as mild and moderate not severe according to WHO severity Scale.

Inclusion criteria:
Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Definition of Mild and moderate COVID-19 was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Exclusion criteria:
Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake.
It was corrected.

Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.
Was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.

The statement is rephrasing with addition of some explaining important words as
Each participant was asked to walk independently with his or her comfortable footwear on a flat, well illuminated ,non-slippery ground surface in corridor 30-meters space for 6 minutes as fast as possible without oxygen inhalation, the results were expressed in meters.

d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.
The statement was rephrased. A wearable wrist oxygen pulse oximeter was well fastened in the index and wrist of non-dominant hand for every participant to measure oxygen saturation during 6MWT.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate

Shapiro Wilk’s test was replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.

It was done.

Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used?
the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among these three groups groups matched group, Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group as the COVID -19 group was divided into two subgroups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group so I used the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among three groups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group and matched group.
After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. and the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

The Mann Whitney test was already used to compare between COVID-group & matched non-COVID-19 group. also The sample size of the pre--6 months and post -6 months sub-groups are almost similar they compared by using Mann-Whitney test.
So finally the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was omitted and table number 5 also was omitted.

Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear.

The COVID-19 group was divided into two sub-groups which are Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group to determine time effect on the recovery of course of COVID-19 as infectious disease.

If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. And the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

Results:
Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.

As the study procedure was done by attendance of participants in two-days first day to determine the proper participants who meet inclusion criteria of the research and taking the demographic data the second day for taking different measurements, some of them are already selected and take his or her demographic data but not attend in the second day for doing measurements.

In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.

The mean and standard deviation was replaced with median and IQR .

Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

It was done as the Kruskal-Wallis’s test output was cancelled and table 5 was deleted.

Discussion:
Add strengths of the study.

Was explained and clarified in different points as rephrasing gap of knowledge, used objective assessment equipment , discussion and conclusion

Conclusion:
regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Was done.

Finally thanks for your worthful comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 30 Nov 2023

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

30 Nov 2023

Author Response

The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

... Continue reading The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

Abstract:

Background:

The words physical activities were only used in the text and the words   physical performance were omitted
“Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Methods:

Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.

The statement was rephrased to 80 male and female matched (non-infected with COVID-19) participants.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Results: Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

The results show significant differences in FVC & FEV₁ of the pulmonary function ,exercise capacities and physical activity of the work &transportations between COVID-19 and matched groups (p-value = 0.001&0.001,0.001and 0.005&0.012) respectively.

Introduction:

Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph- Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solutions should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

The introduction was rephrasing again including 4 paragraphs.
Its length was adjusted as I organize the introduction into 4 paragraphs.
The first one talking about the prevalence and hazards of COVID-19 as this is new research area.
The second and the third included the pathology of COVID-19 and its impacts on different body systems.
The last paragraph or the fourth explains gap of knowledge and objective of the study.
Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
It was done.

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants or number of patients must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
The extra or exceeding number of sample sizes do not conflict with the ethical aspects particularly our study is a cross sectional study the attendance of patients included only two times.
The measured variables do not have any hazards for participants, also are valuable and worthful for patients and matched participants to know their results of their assessments.

Subjects:
(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

After physical examination, inspection and analysis checking by pulmonologist to confirm their diagnosis they were infected with COVID -19, and their conditions are classified as mild and moderate not severe according to WHO severity Scale.

Inclusion criteria:
Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Definition of Mild and moderate COVID-19 was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Exclusion criteria:
Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake.
It was corrected.

Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.
Was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.

The statement is rephrasing with addition of some explaining important words as
Each participant was asked to walk independently with his or her comfortable footwear on a flat, well illuminated ,non-slippery ground surface in corridor 30-meters space for 6 minutes as fast as possible without oxygen inhalation, the results were expressed in meters.

d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.
The statement was rephrased. A wearable wrist oxygen pulse oximeter was well fastened in the index and wrist of non-dominant hand for every participant to measure oxygen saturation during 6MWT.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate

Shapiro Wilk’s test was replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.

It was done.

Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used?
the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among these three groups groups matched group, Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group as the COVID -19 group was divided into two subgroups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group so I used the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among three groups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group and matched group.
After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. and the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

The Mann Whitney test was already used to compare between COVID-group & matched non-COVID-19 group. also The sample size of the pre--6 months and post -6 months sub-groups are almost similar they compared by using Mann-Whitney test.
So finally the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was omitted and table number 5 also was omitted.

Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear.

The COVID-19 group was divided into two sub-groups which are Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group to determine time effect on the recovery of course of COVID-19 as infectious disease.

If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. And the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

Results:
Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.

As the study procedure was done by attendance of participants in two-days first day to determine the proper participants who meet inclusion criteria of the research and taking the demographic data the second day for taking different measurements, some of them are already selected and take his or her demographic data but not attend in the second day for doing measurements.

In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.

The mean and standard deviation was replaced with median and IQR .

Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

It was done as the Kruskal-Wallis’s test output was cancelled and table 5 was deleted.

Discussion:
Add strengths of the study.

Was explained and clarified in different points as rephrasing gap of knowledge, used objective assessment equipment , discussion and conclusion

Conclusion:
regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Was done.

Finally thanks for your worthful comments.
The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

Abstract:

Background:

The words physical activities were only used in the text and the words   physical performance were omitted
“Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Methods:

Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.

The statement was rephrased to 80 male and female matched (non-infected with COVID-19) participants.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Results: Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

The results show significant differences in FVC & FEV₁ of the pulmonary function ,exercise capacities and physical activity of the work &transportations between COVID-19 and matched groups (p-value = 0.001&0.001,0.001and 0.005&0.012) respectively.

Introduction:

Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph- Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solutions should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

The introduction was rephrasing again including 4 paragraphs.
Its length was adjusted as I organize the introduction into 4 paragraphs.
The first one talking about the prevalence and hazards of COVID-19 as this is new research area.
The second and the third included the pathology of COVID-19 and its impacts on different body systems.
The last paragraph or the fourth explains gap of knowledge and objective of the study.
Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
It was done.

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants or number of patients must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
The extra or exceeding number of sample sizes do not conflict with the ethical aspects particularly our study is a cross sectional study the attendance of patients included only two times.
The measured variables do not have any hazards for participants, also are valuable and worthful for patients and matched participants to know their results of their assessments.

Subjects:
(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

After physical examination, inspection and analysis checking by pulmonologist to confirm their diagnosis they were infected with COVID -19, and their conditions are classified as mild and moderate not severe according to WHO severity Scale.

Inclusion criteria:
Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Definition of Mild and moderate COVID-19 was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Exclusion criteria:
Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake.
It was corrected.

Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.
Was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.

The statement is rephrasing with addition of some explaining important words as
Each participant was asked to walk independently with his or her comfortable footwear on a flat, well illuminated ,non-slippery ground surface in corridor 30-meters space for 6 minutes as fast as possible without oxygen inhalation, the results were expressed in meters.

d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.
The statement was rephrased. A wearable wrist oxygen pulse oximeter was well fastened in the index and wrist of non-dominant hand for every participant to measure oxygen saturation during 6MWT.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate

Shapiro Wilk’s test was replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.

It was done.

Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used?
the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among these three groups groups matched group, Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group as the COVID -19 group was divided into two subgroups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group so I used the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among three groups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group and matched group.
After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. and the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

The Mann Whitney test was already used to compare between COVID-group & matched non-COVID-19 group. also The sample size of the pre--6 months and post -6 months sub-groups are almost similar they compared by using Mann-Whitney test.
So finally the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was omitted and table number 5 also was omitted.

Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear.

The COVID-19 group was divided into two sub-groups which are Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group to determine time effect on the recovery of course of COVID-19 as infectious disease.

If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. And the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

Results:
Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.

As the study procedure was done by attendance of participants in two-days first day to determine the proper participants who meet inclusion criteria of the research and taking the demographic data the second day for taking different measurements, some of them are already selected and take his or her demographic data but not attend in the second day for doing measurements.

In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.

The mean and standard deviation was replaced with median and IQR .

Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

It was done as the Kruskal-Wallis’s test output was cancelled and table 5 was deleted.

Discussion:
Add strengths of the study.

Was explained and clarified in different points as rephrasing gap of knowledge, used objective assessment equipment , discussion and conclusion

Conclusion:
regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Was done.

Finally thanks for your worthful comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Sep 2023

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.155029.r203744

Authors justified ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 11 Jul 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 16 Aug 2023

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.146511.r186229

This cross-sectional study investigated the long-term effect of mild-moderate COVID-19 infection on the pulmonary, functional capacity and physical activities variables in patients living in Sakaka Aljouf Saudi Arabia. 160 participants of both genders were allocated to either: group-I that included 80 non-severe COVID-19 patients at least 3 months after the recovery time, and group-II that included 80 healthy matched participants.

Evaluations of the pulmonary variables (using the spirometer), the physical capacity (using the six-minute walk test), and the physical activities variables (using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire) were done for both groups.

Results showed significantly reduced pulmonary, functional capacity and physical activities levels (at least 3-months post-Covid-19 recovery) in patients affected with COVID-19 (group-I) compared with healthy matched participants (group-II).

Abstract:

Background:

“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.

Conclusion:

The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.
The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:

Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.

Methods:

Inclusion criteria:

Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).

Exclusion criteria:

It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.

Procedure of the study:

Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).

Results:

Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.

Discussion:

Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Physiotherapy for cardiovascular/pulmonary disorders and geriatrics, cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 28 Mar 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

28 Mar 2024

Author Response

Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show ... Continue reading Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.
Author Response:
The means and SD as well as p-values were added.

Conclusion:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.

The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.
Author Response:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization was removed.
On long term-basis was added at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.
Author Response:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) were done.

Methods:
Inclusion criteria: Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).
Author Response:
The patient sample was selected by pulmonologist. The severity of the infection was classified according to the WHO regression scale (Marshall et al., 2020). The scale classifies the severity of COVID-19 infection into five categories: 1-uninfected with a 0 score, 2- a mild disease with a score ranging from 1-3, 3- a moderate disease with a score ranging from 4-5, 4- a severe disease with a score ranging from 6-9, and 5- dead with score 10.

Exclusion criteria:
It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.
Author Response:
Patients with COVID-19 who cannot walk, acute infections, recent surgeries.

Procedure of the study:
Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Author Response:
Medical international research Manufacturer’s address:
MIR S.p.A. - Medical International Research
via del Maggiolino, 125
00155 ROME (ITALY)
Tel + 39 0622754777 Fax + 39 0622754785
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mir@spirometry.com
MIR USA, Inc.
5462 S. Westridge Drive
New Berlin, WI 53151 - USA
Tel + 1 (262) 565 – 6797 Fax + 1 (262) 364 – 2030
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mirusa@spirometry.com

https://spirometry.com/en/products/spirobank-ii-basic

Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).
Author response:
The covid group was selected at least 3 months from recovery after that they are classified into two groups, pre 6 months, & post 6 months after recovery time.

Results:
Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.
Author Response:
The spearman's correlation with the severity of infection showed that positive correlation between 6 MWT physical activity transportation, and physical activity domestic &yard (r= 0.005 &0.03 respectively also presence of positive correlation between FEF_a & FEF _25-75 (r= 0.042) , While the results show negative correlation BMI & physical activity transportation & leisured and free time (r= 0.015 &0.012) respectively whereas presence of positive correlation between 6MWT & FEV1 (r= 0.014).
In addition to time factor the results show negative correlation between BMI & both physical activity of work and transportation (r= 0.015&0.027 and 0.001&0.046) in pre 6 months and post 6 months subgroup respectively .
The number of patients was written in the statistical part pre-6 months (30patients) and post 6-months(50 patients) sub-groups
The word “sex” was replaced with “gender”.

Discussion:
Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.
Author Response:
Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities within the average time 7.9 months after recovery

Thanks for your valuable comments.
Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.
Author Response:
The means and SD as well as p-values were added.

Conclusion:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.

The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.
Author Response:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization was removed.
On long term-basis was added at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.
Author Response:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) were done.

Methods:
Inclusion criteria: Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).
Author Response:
The patient sample was selected by pulmonologist. The severity of the infection was classified according to the WHO regression scale (Marshall et al., 2020). The scale classifies the severity of COVID-19 infection into five categories: 1-uninfected with a 0 score, 2- a mild disease with a score ranging from 1-3, 3- a moderate disease with a score ranging from 4-5, 4- a severe disease with a score ranging from 6-9, and 5- dead with score 10.

Exclusion criteria:
It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.
Author Response:
Patients with COVID-19 who cannot walk, acute infections, recent surgeries.

Procedure of the study:
Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Author Response:
Medical international research Manufacturer’s address:
MIR S.p.A. - Medical International Research
via del Maggiolino, 125
00155 ROME (ITALY)
Tel + 39 0622754777 Fax + 39 0622754785
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mir@spirometry.com
MIR USA, Inc.
5462 S. Westridge Drive
New Berlin, WI 53151 - USA
Tel + 1 (262) 565 – 6797 Fax + 1 (262) 364 – 2030
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mirusa@spirometry.com

https://spirometry.com/en/products/spirobank-ii-basic

Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).
Author response:
The covid group was selected at least 3 months from recovery after that they are classified into two groups, pre 6 months, & post 6 months after recovery time.

Results:
Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.
Author Response:
The spearman's correlation with the severity of infection showed that positive correlation between 6 MWT physical activity transportation, and physical activity domestic &yard (r= 0.005 &0.03 respectively also presence of positive correlation between FEF_a & FEF _25-75 (r= 0.042) , While the results show negative correlation BMI & physical activity transportation & leisured and free time (r= 0.015 &0.012) respectively whereas presence of positive correlation between 6MWT & FEV1 (r= 0.014).
In addition to time factor the results show negative correlation between BMI & both physical activity of work and transportation (r= 0.015&0.027 and 0.001&0.046) in pre 6 months and post 6 months subgroup respectively .
The number of patients was written in the statistical part pre-6 months (30patients) and post 6-months(50 patients) sub-groups
The word “sex” was replaced with “gender”.

Discussion:
Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.
Author Response:
Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities within the average time 7.9 months after recovery

Thanks for your valuable comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 28 Mar 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

28 Mar 2024

Author Response

Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show ... Continue reading Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.
Author Response:
The means and SD as well as p-values were added.

Conclusion:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.

The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.
Author Response:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization was removed.
On long term-basis was added at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.
Author Response:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) were done.

Methods:
Inclusion criteria: Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).
Author Response:
The patient sample was selected by pulmonologist. The severity of the infection was classified according to the WHO regression scale (Marshall et al., 2020). The scale classifies the severity of COVID-19 infection into five categories: 1-uninfected with a 0 score, 2- a mild disease with a score ranging from 1-3, 3- a moderate disease with a score ranging from 4-5, 4- a severe disease with a score ranging from 6-9, and 5- dead with score 10.

Exclusion criteria:
It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.
Author Response:
Patients with COVID-19 who cannot walk, acute infections, recent surgeries.

Procedure of the study:
Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Author Response:
Medical international research Manufacturer’s address:
MIR S.p.A. - Medical International Research
via del Maggiolino, 125
00155 ROME (ITALY)
Tel + 39 0622754777 Fax + 39 0622754785
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mir@spirometry.com
MIR USA, Inc.
5462 S. Westridge Drive
New Berlin, WI 53151 - USA
Tel + 1 (262) 565 – 6797 Fax + 1 (262) 364 – 2030
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mirusa@spirometry.com

https://spirometry.com/en/products/spirobank-ii-basic

Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).
Author response:
The covid group was selected at least 3 months from recovery after that they are classified into two groups, pre 6 months, & post 6 months after recovery time.

Results:
Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.
Author Response:
The spearman's correlation with the severity of infection showed that positive correlation between 6 MWT physical activity transportation, and physical activity domestic &yard (r= 0.005 &0.03 respectively also presence of positive correlation between FEF_a & FEF _25-75 (r= 0.042) , While the results show negative correlation BMI & physical activity transportation & leisured and free time (r= 0.015 &0.012) respectively whereas presence of positive correlation between 6MWT & FEV1 (r= 0.014).
In addition to time factor the results show negative correlation between BMI & both physical activity of work and transportation (r= 0.015&0.027 and 0.001&0.046) in pre 6 months and post 6 months subgroup respectively .
The number of patients was written in the statistical part pre-6 months (30patients) and post 6-months(50 patients) sub-groups
The word “sex” was replaced with “gender”.

Discussion:
Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.
Author Response:
Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities within the average time 7.9 months after recovery

Thanks for your valuable comments.
Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.
Author Response:
The means and SD as well as p-values were added.

Conclusion:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.

The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.
Author Response:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization was removed.
On long term-basis was added at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.
Author Response:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) were done.

Methods:
Inclusion criteria: Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).
Author Response:
The patient sample was selected by pulmonologist. The severity of the infection was classified according to the WHO regression scale (Marshall et al., 2020). The scale classifies the severity of COVID-19 infection into five categories: 1-uninfected with a 0 score, 2- a mild disease with a score ranging from 1-3, 3- a moderate disease with a score ranging from 4-5, 4- a severe disease with a score ranging from 6-9, and 5- dead with score 10.

Exclusion criteria:
It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.
Author Response:
Patients with COVID-19 who cannot walk, acute infections, recent surgeries.

Procedure of the study:
Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Author Response:
Medical international research Manufacturer’s address:
MIR S.p.A. - Medical International Research
via del Maggiolino, 125
00155 ROME (ITALY)
Tel + 39 0622754777 Fax + 39 0622754785
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mir@spirometry.com
MIR USA, Inc.
5462 S. Westridge Drive
New Berlin, WI 53151 - USA
Tel + 1 (262) 565 – 6797 Fax + 1 (262) 364 – 2030
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mirusa@spirometry.com

https://spirometry.com/en/products/spirobank-ii-basic

Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).
Author response:
The covid group was selected at least 3 months from recovery after that they are classified into two groups, pre 6 months, & post 6 months after recovery time.

Results:
Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.
Author Response:
The spearman's correlation with the severity of infection showed that positive correlation between 6 MWT physical activity transportation, and physical activity domestic &yard (r= 0.005 &0.03 respectively also presence of positive correlation between FEF_a & FEF _25-75 (r= 0.042) , While the results show negative correlation BMI & physical activity transportation & leisured and free time (r= 0.015 &0.012) respectively whereas presence of positive correlation between 6MWT & FEV1 (r= 0.014).
In addition to time factor the results show negative correlation between BMI & both physical activity of work and transportation (r= 0.015&0.027 and 0.001&0.046) in pre 6 months and post 6 months subgroup respectively .
The number of patients was written in the statistical part pre-6 months (30patients) and post 6-months(50 patients) sub-groups
The word “sex” was replaced with “gender”.

Discussion:
Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.
Author Response:
Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities within the average time 7.9 months after recovery

Thanks for your valuable comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 5

VERSION 5 PUBLISHED 11 Jul 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 5 (revision) 04 Mar 24	read	read
Version 4 (revision) 09 Jan 24	read	read
Version 3 (revision) 30 Nov 23		read
Version 2 (revision) 04 Sep 23	read	read
Version 1 11 Jul 23	read

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, India; Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, India

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

26 Mar 2024 | for Version 5

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

We agree that the writing style of the interquartile range (IQR) in table 1 and table 2 is correct. However, when they are combined with median, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile) instead of median +/- (25th quartile, 75th quartile). "+/-" to be removed. Otherwise fine. Can be considered Approved.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

20 Mar 2024 | for Version 5

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No further comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physiotherapy for cardiovascular/pulmonary disorders and geriatrics, cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

28 Feb 2024 | for Version 4

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

13 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Apr 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

1-Reply to the response of the first comment:
"maximizing the sample size is healthy" is unjustifiable. Increasing sample size may result in considering small differences to be statistically significant differences, even though they are clinically insignificant.
Response: Your opinion regarding to the addition of extra number of participants than that calculated in the sample size is a new statistical information to me and I am grateful thanks for your valuable comments in my paper, your revision added many valuable information to it. other than my previous response to this point in your comments I have not any other justifications
2-Reply to the response of the second comment:
Satisfied with the second response.
Response: Very thanks for your worthful comments
3-Reply to the response of the third comment:
Though means & standard deviation in all tables was replaced with median & IQR, the syntax of using median & IQR is incorrect. It should be re-written as, Median (25th quartile, 75th quartile). Moreover, table 2 still has the term, 'Mean values', even though they were represented as median & IQR. Satisfied with other responses for the third comment.
Response: I change the writing style of the interquartile range (IQR) as 25th quartile, 75th quartile in table 1 and table 2

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

29 Jan 2024 | for Version 4

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Authors justified the suggested corrections

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physiotherapy for cardiovascular/pulmonary disorders and geriatrics, cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

19 Dec 2023 | for Version 3

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Methods:

Sample size:

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".

Results:

Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

11 Jan 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Dear respected reviewer Thanks for your valuable and important comments.

First comment
Sample size: By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.
Response
1- The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
2-The calculated sample size gives us an estimation of the minimum sample size,so maximizing the sample size is healthy. Sample sizes are calculated to detect the smallest clinically significant difference. to detect the smallest clinically significant difference, it has more than adequate power to detect bigger differences. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/samplesizecalculation.pdf page 17
3-Overestimating the same size could be done to minimize the effects of a few participants' incomplete data which is removed from analysis.

Second comment
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "without oxygen inhalation" is not correct. It should be changed to, "without oxygen support or assisted ventilation".
Response
The statement is rephrased to
Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT without oxygen support.

Third comment
Figure 1 – Still Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please remove the word, “Dropout” from, Figure 1
In Table 1 to Table 4, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly. Even expressing in 95% confidence interval is not appropriate. Moreover, the way of representing 95% confidence interval is not correct. Table 4 is not necessary. Why have to express it in Mean with SD which is not appropriate?
Response
a-The figure was updated and the word drop out was removed
b- the means & standard deviation in all table was replaced with median & IQR
c- Table 4 as you stated it was canceled and the statements were rephrased
d- the writing style of confidence interval was changed
very thanks for your comments

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

21 Views

31 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

Asir John Samuel, Yenepoya Physiotheapy College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

Vencita Priyanka Aranha, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centre, Karkala, Karnataka, India; Physiotherapy, Aikya Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Karkala, Karnataka, India

21 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Abstract:
Background:

Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".
Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

Methods:

"Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

Results:

Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

Introduction:

Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.
Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph – Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solution should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

Subjects:

(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

Inclusion criteria:

Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 - Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Exclusion criteria:

Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake. Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.
d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.
Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.
Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used? Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear. If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

Results:

Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.
In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.
Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

Discussion:

Add strengths of the study.

Conclusion:

Conclude regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Armağan A: How to write an introduction section of a scientific article?. Turk J Urol. 2013; 39 (Suppl 1): 8-9 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physical activity, pulmonary function, COVID-19 impact

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

30 Nov 2023

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

The comments of the second reviewer and responses of the authors.
My grateful thanks for the your valuable and important scientific comments, all of theses comments are considered.

Abstract:

Background:

The words physical activities were only used in the text and the words physical performance were omitted
“Retain either, "physical activities" or "physical performance".

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Avoid duplicating similar words, "pulmonary function, functional capacities, physical activities" in the same paragraph.

This statement was rephrased in all manuscript to pulmonary function, exercise capacities, physical activities.

Methods:

Group-II:80 male and female matched participants" - Matched? (matched non-infected with COVID-19) participants. Non-COVID-19 or ? to be added.

The statement was rephrased to 80 male and female matched (non-infected with COVID-19) participants.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.
As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate.

The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was changed to Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Results: Add appropriate "p-value" ie, 0.05 or 0.01 or?

The results show significant differences in FVC & FEV₁ of the pulmonary function ,exercise capacities and physical activity of the work &transportations between COVID-19 and matched groups (p-value = 0.001&0.001,0.001and 0.005&0.012) respectively.

Introduction:

Introduction should be drafted in 3 paragraphs. Please refer to this article for detailed description: Armağan (2013¹).
1st Paragraph- Provide information about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript (what is known?).
2nd Paragraph – Focus on the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed (what is unknown?).
3rd Paragraph - Finally, our recommendations for solutions should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature (what are you going to do?).

The introduction was rephrasing again including 4 paragraphs.
Its length was adjusted as I organize the introduction into 4 paragraphs.
The first one talking about the prevalence and hazards of COVID-19 as this is new research area.
The second and the third included the pathology of COVID-19 and its impacts on different body systems.
The last paragraph or the fourth explains gap of knowledge and objective of the study.
Overall, the introduction is lengthy. Generally, the introduction should be 10% to a maximum of 20% of the total manuscript length.

Methods:

Sample size:

Change, "sigma = 13.1, and SD = 13.1" as "sigma/SD = 13.1" as both denote the same meaning.
It was done.

By calculation, it was estimated to be n=73 in each group. Then, why n=7 samples were added to each group? It is unethical to utilize 14 human valuable times when the same could have arrived without including them. Please justify.

The sample size is considered the minimum number of participants or number of patients must be included till the results analysis and statistical outputs to be valid and reliable, so the extra numbers make our results more valid and reliable.
The extra or exceeding number of sample sizes do not conflict with the ethical aspects particularly our study is a cross sectional study the attendance of patients included only two times.
The measured variables do not have any hazards for participants, also are valuable and worthful for patients and matched participants to know their results of their assessments.

Subjects:
(based on external examination of body characteristics) - reference or details to be added.

After physical examination, inspection and analysis checking by pulmonologist to confirm their diagnosis they were infected with COVID -19, and their conditions are classified as mild and moderate not severe according to WHO severity Scale.

Inclusion criteria:
Male and female patients who diagnosed with mild & moderate COVID-19 Define "mild COVID-19" and "moderate COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.

Definition of Mild and moderate COVID-19 was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Exclusion criteria:
Patients with sever COVID-19 - "severe" spelling mistake.
It was corrected.

Define "severe COVID-19" or add the reference for the same.
Was added in the paragraph of procedure of the study with also its reference.

Procedure of the study:

c) Functional capacity was measured by using the 6MWT: "Each participant was asked to walk independently on flat ground" - describe the nature of the flat ground like, non-slippery, well illuminated, etc, and walk with footwear or without footwear.

The statement is rephrasing with addition of some explaining important words as
Each participant was asked to walk independently with his or her comfortable footwear on a flat, well illuminated ,non-slippery ground surface in corridor 30-meters space for 6 minutes as fast as possible without oxygen inhalation, the results were expressed in meters.

d) Pulse oximeter - how was the pulse oximeter held - fastened to the fingers or any other part while walking as fast as possible? Add the practical issues that might help in replicating the study in the future.
The statement was rephrased. A wearable wrist oxygen pulse oximeter was well fastened in the index and wrist of non-dominant hand for every participant to measure oxygen saturation during 6MWT.

Statistical analysis:

Shapiro Wilk’s test - to be replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. As the sample size is >50, Shapiro–Wilk’s test will not be appropriate to test the normality of data. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test would be more appropriate

Shapiro Wilk’s test was replaced with Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Avoid using abnormal distribution. Use, not normal distribution.

It was done.

Kruskal-Wallis’s test - When two groups (Group-I) and (Group-II), why was Kruskal-Wallis’s test used?
the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among these three groups groups matched group, Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group as the COVID -19 group was divided into two subgroups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group so I used the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was used to compare among three groups which are pre-6 months group, post -6 months group and matched group.
After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. and the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

The Mann Whitney test was already used to compare between COVID-group & matched non-COVID-19 group. also The sample size of the pre--6 months and post -6 months sub-groups are almost similar they compared by using Mann-Whitney test.
So finally the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was omitted and table number 5 also was omitted.

Justify. Pre 6 months and post 6 months descriptions are not clear.

The COVID-19 group was divided into two sub-groups which are Pre-6 months group and post -6 months group to determine time effect on the recovery of course of COVID-19 as infectious disease.

If COVID-19 group participants were divided, then each group would not have an appropriate sample size to detect the statistical difference and statistical comments could not be made. Add more clarity.

After your suggestion and opinion and also consultation of statistician he agreed with your opinion the sample size of matched group, pre-6 months group and post -6 months group are different, so they only compared descriptively by using confidence intervals. And the Kruskal-Wallis’s test was canceled.

Results:
Figure 1 - Not correct. In a cross-sectional study, how is dropout possible? Please justify.

As the study procedure was done by attendance of participants in two-days first day to determine the proper participants who meet inclusion criteria of the research and taking the demographic data the second day for taking different measurements, some of them are already selected and take his or her demographic data but not attend in the second day for doing measurements.

In Table 1 to Table 5, if the data does not follow normal distribution, then it should be expressed as a median with interquartile range (IQR) or geometric mean with 95% confidence interval. Mean with SD is not appropriate. Modify accordingly.

The mean and standard deviation was replaced with median and IQR .

Moreover, Table 4 and Table 5 have duplicated values which were already presented in Table 3. Avoid this duplication. Tables 3-5 could be merged.

It was done as the Kruskal-Wallis’s test output was cancelled and table 5 was deleted.

Discussion:
Add strengths of the study.

Was explained and clarified in different points as rephrasing gap of knowledge, used objective assessment equipment , discussion and conclusion

Conclusion:
regarding, non-severe COVID-19 and Sakaka Aljouf. These are two key facts to be added.

Was done.

Finally thanks for your worthful comments.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

4 Views

15 Sep 2023 | for Version 2

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

4 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Authors justified the requested items.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physiotherapy for cardiovascular/pulmonary disorders and geriatrics, cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

29 Views

16 Aug 2023 | for Version 1

Ashraf Abdelaal Mohamed Abdelaal, Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

29 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.

Conclusion:

The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.
The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:

Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.

Methods:

Inclusion criteria:

Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).

Exclusion criteria:

It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.

Procedure of the study:

Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).

Results:

Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.

Discussion:

Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Physiotherapy for cardiovascular/pulmonary disorders and geriatrics, cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

28 Mar 2024

ALSAYED SHANB, Physical Therapy Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Comments of reviewer one:

Abstract
Background:
“Personal performance”: better to change it to “physical performance”.
Author Response:
Personal performance was changed to physical performance.

Results:
“The results show significant differences in…”, please provide the means and SD as well as p-values.
Author Response:
The means and SD as well as p-values were added.

Conclusion:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization”: It is better to modify this sentence or remove it since the current study is limited to mild-moderately affected patients and did not provide full details regarding the history of hospitalization.

The sentence “reflections of the current results raise awareness for physical therapists to tailor the proper rehabilitative training programs for such patients”: it is better to add “on long term-basis” at the end of the sentence.
Author Response:
The sentence “whatever their severity degree of infection or history of hospitalization was removed.
On long term-basis was added at the end of the sentence.

Introduction:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) need to be written first in full term, then to be abbreviated after that within the text.
Author Response:
Abbreviations (e.g., 2MWT, FVC and so on) were done.

Methods:
Inclusion criteria: Please provide more details about the Non-sever COVID-19 as it is the main inclusion criteria (at least add “who diagnosed with mild-moderate COVID-19).
Author Response:
The patient sample was selected by pulmonologist. The severity of the infection was classified according to the WHO regression scale (Marshall et al., 2020). The scale classifies the severity of COVID-19 infection into five categories: 1-uninfected with a 0 score, 2- a mild disease with a score ranging from 1-3, 3- a moderate disease with a score ranging from 4-5, 4- a severe disease with a score ranging from 6-9, and 5- dead with score 10.

Exclusion criteria:
It is better to remove or modulate the sentence of “All participants including non-infected individuals with COVID-19” since the study included non-infected healthy matched group.
Author Response:
Patients with COVID-19 who cannot walk, acute infections, recent surgeries.

Procedure of the study:
Please provide the full details (version, model, manufacture) of the used instrument to evaluate the Pulmonary function.
Author Response:
Medical international research Manufacturer’s address:
MIR S.p.A. - Medical International Research
via del Maggiolino, 125
00155 ROME (ITALY)
Tel + 39 0622754777 Fax + 39 0622754785
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mir@spirometry.com
MIR USA, Inc.
5462 S. Westridge Drive
New Berlin, WI 53151 - USA
Tel + 1 (262) 565 – 6797 Fax + 1 (262) 364 – 2030
Web site: www.spirometry.com Email: mirusa@spirometry.com

https://spirometry.com/en/products/spirobank-ii-basic

Please provide more clarification/details about the differences between (at least 3-months post-COVID-19 recovery), (pre 6-months), (post 6-months).
Author response:
The covid group was selected at least 3 months from recovery after that they are classified into two groups, pre 6 months, & post 6 months after recovery time.

Results:
Were there correlations between the severity and duration post COVID-19 infection on one hand and the evaluated variables on the other hand?
The word “sex” is better to be replaced with “gender”.
In table 4 and 5; please provide the numbers of participants in each group.
Author Response:
The spearman's correlation with the severity of infection showed that positive correlation between 6 MWT physical activity transportation, and physical activity domestic &yard (r= 0.005 &0.03 respectively also presence of positive correlation between FEF_a & FEF _25-75 (r= 0.042) , While the results show negative correlation BMI & physical activity transportation & leisured and free time (r= 0.015 &0.012) respectively whereas presence of positive correlation between 6MWT & FEV1 (r= 0.014).
In addition to time factor the results show negative correlation between BMI & both physical activity of work and transportation (r= 0.015&0.027 and 0.001&0.046) in pre 6 months and post 6 months subgroup respectively .
The number of patients was written in the statistical part pre-6 months (30patients) and post 6-months(50 patients) sub-groups
The word “sex” was replaced with “gender”.

Discussion:
Please correct the following sentence: “Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities up to one year after recovery time”. Since the average post COVID-19 duration of this study is 7.9 months.
Author Response:
Results of the current study indicate that post-COVID-19 patients may experience chest abnormalities including reductions in pulmonary function, decreased functional capacity, and physical activities within the average time 7.9 months after recovery

Thanks for your valuable comments.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): how is it transmitted?2021. Reference Source

[2] 2. World Health Organization: WHO coronavirus dashboard.2022. 29 Sep. 2022. Reference Source

[3] 3. World Bank: The economic impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. (Accessed 1 Nov. 2022). Reference Source

[4] 4. Center of Budget and Policy Priorities: The COVID-19 economy’s effects on food, housing, and employment hardships.16 Nov. 2022. Reference Source

[5] 5. Ahmed I, Medabesh AM, Mehrez KH, et al.: Socioeconomic spillovers of COVID-19: Case of Saudi Arabia. Kybernetes. 2021; 52: 1070–1093. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Pak A, Adegboye OA, Adekunle AI, et al.: Economic consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak: the need for epidemic preparedness. Front. Public Health. 2020; 8: 241. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. World Health Organization: Post COVID_19 condition.2022. (Accessed 28 Sep. 2022). Reference Source

[8] 8. Boutou AK, Asimakos A, Kortianou E, et al.: Long COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae and management considerations. J. Pers. Med. 2021; 11: 838. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Nalbandian A, Sehgal K, Gupta A, et al.: Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat. Med. 2021; 27: 601–615. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. SeeBle J, Waterboer T, Hippchen T, et al.: Persistent symptoms in adult patients 1 Year after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Prospective Cohort Study.5 July 2021.

[11] 11. Zhang H, Penninger J, Li Y, et al.: Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as a SARS-CoV-2 receptor: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic target. Intensive Care Med. 2020; 46(4): 586–590. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Ochani R, Asad A, Yasmin F, et al.: COVID-19 pandemic: from origins to outcomes. A comprehensive review of viral pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnostic evaluation, and management. Infez. Med. 2021; 29(1): 20–36. PubMed Abstract

[13] 13. Rooney S, Webster A, Paul L: Systematic review of changes and recovery in physical function and fitness after severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus infection: implications for COVID-19 rehabilitation. Phys. Ther. 2020; 100(10): 717–1729.

[14] 14. Mo X, Jian W, Su Z, et al.: Abnormal pulmonary function in COVID-19 patients at time of hospital discharge. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 55(6): 2001217. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Sanchez-Ramirez D, Normand K, Zhaoyun Y: Long-term impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis. Biomedicines. 2021; 9(8): 900. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Van Der Sar-Van Der Brugge S, Talman S, Boonman-De Winter L: Pulmonary function and health-related quality of life after COVID-19 pneumonia. Respir. Med. 2021; 176: 106272. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Fumagalli A, Misuraca C, Bianchi A, et al.: Pulmonary function in patients surviving COVID-19 pneumonia. Infection. 2020; 50(4): 1019–1022. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Frija-Masson J, Debray MP, Gilbert M, et al.: Functional characteristics of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia at 30 days post-infection. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 56(2): 2001754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Mao L, Jin H, Wang M, et al.: Neurologic manifestations of hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. JAMA Neurol. 2020; 77(6): 683–690. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Xu Z, Shi L, Wang Y, et al.: Pathological findings of COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020; 8(4): 420–422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Pellegrino R, Viegi G, Brusasco V, et al.: Interpretative strategies for lung function tests. Eur. Respir. J. 2005; 26(5): 948–968. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Potus F, Mai V, Lebret M, et al.: Novel insights on the pulmonary vascular consequences of COVID-19. Am. J. Phys. Lung Cell. Mol. Phys. 2020; 319(2): l277–l288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Judson G, Kelemen B, Njoroge J: Cardiovascular implications and therapeutic considerations in COVID-19 infection. Cardiology and Therapy. 2020; 9(2): 293–305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Gao P, Liu J, Liu M: Effect of COVID-19 vaccines on reducing the risk of long COVID in the real world: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022; 19(19): 12422. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Daryanto B, Janardhana A, Purnomo AF: The Effect of Covid-19 Severity on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Manifestations. Med. Arch. 2022 Apr; 76(2): 127–130. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Lamb LE, Dhar N, Timar R, et al.: COVID-19 inflammation results in urine cytokine elevation and causes COVID-19 associated cystitis (CAC). Med. Hypotheses. 2020; 145: 10375. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Mumm J, Osterman A, Ruzicka M, et al.: Urinary frequency as a possibly overlooked symptom in COVID-19 patients: does SARS-CoV-2 cause viral cystitis? Eur. Urol. 2020; 78(4): 624–628. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Pan L, Mu M, Yang P, et al.: Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with digestive symptoms in hubei, china: a descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2020; 115(5): 766–773. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Cheung K, Hung I, Chan P, et al.: Gastrointestinal manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and virus load in fecal samples from a Hong Kong cohort: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2020; 159(1): 81–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[30] 30. Taquet M, Sillett R, Zhu L, et al.: Neurological and psychiatric risk trajectories after SARS-CoV-2 infection: An analysis of 2-year retrospective cohort studies including 1 284 437 patients. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022; 9(10): 815–827. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Latronico N, Peli E, Calza S, et al.: Physical, cognitive, and mental health outcomes in 1-year survivors of COVID-19-associated ards. Thorax. 2022; 77(3): 300–303. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Tanriverdi A, Savci S, Kahraman B, et al.: Extrapulmonary features of post-COVID-19 patients: muscle function, physical activity, mood, and sleep quality. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2022; 191(3): 969–975. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[33] 33. Delbressine J, Machado F, Goërtz Y, et al.: The impact of post-COVID-19 syndrome on self-reported physical activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(11): 6017. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] 34. Paneroni M, Simonelli C, Saleri M, et al.: Muscle strength and physical performance in patients without previous disabilities recovering from COVID-19 pneumonia. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2021; 100(2): 105–109. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Wu X, Liu X, Zhou Y, et al.: 3-month, 6-month, 9-month, and 12-month respiratory outcomes in patients following COVID-19-related hospitalization: a prospective study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021; 9(7): 747–754. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Cortes-Telles A, Lopez-Romero S, Figueroa-Hurtado E, et al.: Pulmonary function and functional capacity in COVID-19 survivors with persistent dyspnoea. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2021; 288: 103644. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Desai A, Lavelle M, Boursiquot B, et al.: Long-term complications of COVID-19. Am. J. Phys. Cell Phys. 2022; 322(1): C1–C11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Bandyopadhyay D, Akhtar T, Hajra A, et al.: COVID-19 pandemic: cardiovascular complications and future implications. Am. J. Cardiovasc. Drugs. 2020; 20(4): 311–324. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Huang Y, Tan C, Wu J, et al.: Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pulmonary function in early convalescence phase. Respir. Res. 2020; 21(1): 1–10.

[40] 40. Salem A, Al Khathlan N, Alharbi A, et al.: The long-term impact of COVID-19 pneumonia on the pulmonary function of survivors. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021; 14: 3271–3280. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[41] 41. Calabrese C, Annunziata A, Flora M, et al.: Three months follow-up of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by pulmonary embolism. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2022; 8: 1366.

[42] 42. Ngai J, Ko F, Ng S, et al.: The long-term impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on pulmonary function, exercise capacity and health status. Respirology. 2010; 15(3): 543–550. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. Bhimraj A, Morgan RL, Shumaker AH, et al.: Infectious diseases society of America guidelines on the treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2020; 27(10). Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Giannitsi S, Bougiakli M, Bechlioulis A, et al.: 6-minute walking test: a useful tool in the management of heart failure patients. Ther. Adv. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2019; 13: 175394471987008. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] 45. Holland AE, Spruit MA, Troosters T, et al.: An official European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society technical standard: field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2014; 44(6): 1428–1446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Graham BL, Steenburggen I, Miller MR, et al.: Standardization of spirometry 2019 update. An official American thoracic society and European respiratory society technical statement. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019; 200(8): e70–e88. Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Marshall J, Murthy S, Diaz J, et al.: A minimal common outcome measure set for COVID-19 clinical research. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020; 20(8): e192–e197. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[48] 48. Degryse J, Buffels J, Van Dijck Y, et al.: Accuracy of office spirometry performed by trained primary-care physicians using the MIR Spirobank hand-held spirometer. Respiration. 2012; 83: 543–552. Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Quanjer P, Stanojevic S, Cole T, et al.: (Mult)i-ethnic reference values for spirometry for the 3–95-yr age range: the global lung function 2012 equations. Eur. Respir. J. 2012; 40(6): 1324–1343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[50] 50. Helou K, El Helou N, Mahfouz M, et al.: Validity and reliability of an adapted Arabic version of the long international physical activity questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2018; 18(1): 1–8. Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. The IPAQ Group: Guidelines for data processing and analysis of the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ) - short and long forms.2005. Reference Source

[52] 52. American Thorax Society Committee on Proficiency Standards for Clinical Pulmonary Function Laboratories: ATS statement: Guidelines for the six-minute walk test. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002; 166(1): 111–117. Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Enright PL: The six-minute walk test. Respir. Care. 2003; 48(8): 784–785.

[54] 54. Rikli R, Jones C: The reliability and validity of a 6-minute walk test as a measure of physical endurance in older adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 1998; 6(4): 363–375. Publisher Full Text

[55] 55. Enright PL, Sherrill DL: Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998; 158(5): 1384–1387. Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Buekers J, Theunis J, De Boever P, et al.: Wearable finger pulse oximetry for continuous oxygen saturation measurements during daily home routines of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease COPD over one week: observational study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019; 7(6): e12866. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[57] 57. Kendrick K, Baxi S, Smith R: Usefulness of the modified 0-10 borg scale in assessing the degree of dyspnea in patients with COPD and asthma. J. Emerg. Nurs. 2000; 26(3): 216–0222. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[58] 58. Abdallah S, Voduc N, Corrales-Medina V, et al.: Symptoms, pulmonary function, and functional capacity four months after COVID-19. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2021; 18(11): 1912–1917. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[59] 59. Lorent N, Weygaerde YV, Claeys E, et al.: Prospective longitudinal evaluation of hospitalised COVID-19 survivors 3 and 12 months after discharge. ERJ Open Res. 2022; 8(2): 00004–02022. Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Lerum TV, Aaløkken TM, Brønstad E, et al.: Dyspnoea, lung function and CT findings 3 months after hospital admission for COVID-19. Eur. Respir. J. 2021; 57(4): 2003448. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[61] 61. Eksombatchai D, Wongsinin T, Phongnarudech T, et al.: Pulmonary function and six-minute-walk test in patients after recovery from COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2021; 16(9): e0257040. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[62] 62. Zhang S, Bai W, Yue J, et al.: Eight months follow-up study on pulmonary function, lung radiographic, and related physiological characteristics in COVID-19 survivors. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11(1): 1–13.

[63] 63. Haft JW, Atluri P, Ailawadi G, et al.: Adult cardiac surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a tiered patient triage guidance statement. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020; 160(2): 452–455. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[64] 64. McDonald LT: Healing after COVID-19: are survivors at risk for pulmonary fibrosis? Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2021; 320: L257–L265. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[65] 65. Liu K, Zhang W, Yang Y, et al.: Respiratory rehabilitation in elderly patients with COVID-19: a randomized controlled study. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2020; 39(101166): 1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[66] 66. Talaminos Barroso A, Márquez Martín E, Roa Romero LM, et al.: Factors affecting lung function: A Review of Literature. Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition). 2018; 54(6): 327–332. Publisher Full Text

[67] 67. Magdy DM, Metwally A, Tawab DA, et al.: Long-term COVID-19 effects on pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and health status. Ann. Thorac. Med. 2022; 17(1): 28. Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Madrid-Mejía W, Gochicoa-Rangel L, Padilla P, et al.: Improvement in walking distance lags raise in lung function in post-COVID-19 patients. Arch. Bronconeumol. 2022; 58(3): 261–263. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[69] 69. Torres-Castro R, Vasconcello-Castillo L, Alsina-Restoy X, et al.: Respiratory function in patients post-infection by COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pulmonology. 2020; 27(4): 328–337. Publisher Full Text

[70] 70. Lau HMC, Lee EWC, Wong CNC, et al.: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on the physical profile and quality of life. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2005; 86(6): 1134–1140. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[71] 71. Ong KC, Ng AK, Lee LU, et al.: Pulmonary function and exercise capacity in survivors of sever acute respiratory syndrome. Eur. Respir. J. 2004; 24(3): 436–442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[72] 72. Raman B, Cassar MP, Tunnicliffe EM, et al.: Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge. Eclinicalmedicine. 2021; 31: 100683. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[73] 73. Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matte A, et al.: Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2011; 364(14): 1293–1304. Publisher Full Text

[74] 74. Haddad F, Zaldivar F, Cooper DM: IL-6-induced skeletal muscle atrophy. J. Appl. Physiol. 2005; 98(3): 911–917. Publisher Full Text

[75] 75. Belli S, Balbi B, Prince I, et al.: Low physical functioning and impaired performance of activities of daily life in COVID-19 patients who survived hospitalisation. Eur. Respir. J. 2020; 56(4): 2002096. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[76] 76. Cao J, Zheng X, Wei W, et al.: Three-month outcomes of recovered COVID-19 patients: Prospective observational study. Ther. Adv. Respir. Dis. 2021; 15: 175346662110094. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[77] 77. Anastasio F, Barbuto S, Scarnecchia E, et al.: Medium-term impact of COVID-19 on pulmonary function, functional capacity, and quality of life. Eur. Respir. J. 2021; 58: 2004015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[78] 78. Lozada-Urbano M, Bendezu Ccanto J, Rivera-Lozada O: Sensory perception. Dataset. figshare. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Long-term effect of non-severe COVID-19 on pulmonary function, exercise capacities and physical activities: a cross-section study in Sakaka Aljouf

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 3

Introduction

Methods

Design of the study

Sample size

Procedure of the study

Statistical analysis

Results

Figure 1. Flow chart of the participants’ recruitment.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics data of recruited participants.

Table 2. Mean values of PFT, 6MWT and IPAQ of COVID-19 and control matched groups.

Table 3. Confidence intervals values of PFT, 6MWT and IPAQ for pre-6 months, post-6 months and matched groups.

Discussion

Limitations

Recommendations

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Acknowledgement

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated