Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 266

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A telerehabilitation programme in post-discharge COVID-19 patients (TERECO): a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Li, Jian'an, Xia, Wenguang, Zhan, Chao, Liu, Shouguo, Yin, Zhifei, Wang, Jiayue, Chong, Yufei, Zheng, Chanjuan, Fang, Xiaoming, Cheng, Wei, Reinhardt, Jan D·2022·Thorax

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate superiority of a telerehabilitation programme for COVID-19 (TERECO) over no rehabilitation with regard to exercise capacity, lower limb muscle strength (LMS), pulmonary function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and dyspnoea. Design: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 block randomisation. Setting: Three major hospitals from Jiangsu and Hubei provinces, China. Participants: 120 formerly hospitalised COVID-19 survivors with remaining dyspnoea complaints were randomised with 61 allocated to control and 59 to TERECO. Intervention: Unsupervised home-based 6-week exercise programme comprising breathing control and thoracic expansion, aerobic exercise and LMS exercise, delivered via smartphone, and remotely monitored with heart rate telemetry. Outcomes: Primary outcome was 6 min walking distance (6MWD) in metres. Secondary outcomes were squat time in seconds; pulmonary function assessed by spirometry; HRQOL measured with Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) and mMRC-dyspnoea. Outcomes were assessed at 6 weeks (post-treatment) and 28 weeks (follow-up). Results: Adjusted between-group difference in change in 6MWD was 65.45 m (95% CI 43.8 to 87.1; p<0.001) at post-treatment and 68.62 m (95% CI 46.39 to 90.85; p<0.001) at follow-up. Treatment effects for LMS were 20.12 s (95% CI 12.34 to 27.9; p<0.001) post-treatment and 22.23 s (95% CI 14.24 to 30.21; p<0.001) at follow-up. No group differences were found for lung function except post-treatment maximum voluntary ventilation. Increase in SF-12 physical component was greater in the TERECO group with treatment effects estimated as 3.79 (95% CI 1.24 to 6.35; p=0.004) at post-treatment and 2.69 (95% CI 0.06 to 5.32; p=0.045) at follow-up. Conclusions: This trial demonstrated superiority of TERECO over no rehabilitation for 6MWD, LMS, and physical HRQOL. Trial registration number: ChiCTR2000031834.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217382

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 46 references

Cited by

See all 266

Metadata

Authors
Li, J., Xia, W., Zhan, C., Liu, S., Yin, Z., Wang, J., Chong, Y., Zheng, C., Fang, X., Cheng, W., & Reinhardt, J. D.
Venue
Thorax
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-07-26
Volume
77
Issue
7
Pages
697-706
ISSN
  • 0040-6376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3296
OpenAlex
W3185391926
Cited by
266
References
46
FWCI
20.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A telerehabilitation programme in post-discharge COVID-19 patients (TERECO): a randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217382
The paper
Li, J., Xia, W., Zhan, C., Liu, S., Yin, Z., Wang, J., Chong, Y., Zheng, C., Fang, X., Cheng, W., & Reinhardt, J. D. (2022). A telerehabilitation programme in post-discharge COVID-19 patients (TERECO): a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-217382

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.