Review Treatment and rehabilitation of Long COVID:A scope of the literature. Update January 2025, 2025,

Treatment and rehabilitation of Long COVID:A scope of the literature. Update January 2025

Raine, Gary Austin; Khouja, Claire Louise; Harden, Melissa; Sutcliffe, Katy; Sowden, Amanda Jayne

[Line breaks added]

Abstract
We identified 23 randomised controlled trials published between September and December 2024 that were focused on Long COVID treatment or rehabilitation. Across our eleven reports produced to date, we have identified and assessed 179 trials published between January 2022 and December 2024.

Twelve of the 23 trials focused on generalised or multiple symptoms of Long COVID, with one study assessing the cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation programme.

Four trials focused primarily on fatigue, and another evaluated a treatment for fatigue and/or cognitive dysfunction. Two other trials had a primary focus on treating cognitive dysfunction.

Three trials focused on respiratory or cardiovascular function or physical fitness, one of which evaluated a treatment for both dyspnoea and fatigue. One trial focused on individuals with post COVID depression and anxiety.

Two trials were rated positively for 12 out of the 13 quality criteria that we assessed and three met 11 criteria. The remaining 18 trials gained a positive rating for between four and ten criteria.

Link | PDF (EPPI-Centre) [Open Access]

 

I believe the criteria are related to sources of bias. So no studies were perfect and most were terrible. Lots of open-label + subjective outcomes.

Edit: it’s a weird way of stating the quality of the studies. It doesn’t really matter what you get right if you also get essential things wrong.