Table 4. Methodology and main outcomes of some studies case-control studies aiming to evaluate the impacts of pulmonary rehabilitation program (PRP) on social disadvantage data of COVID-19 patients.

1 st author (Yr) [country](reference)	a. Study design (Type PRP) b. Participants, N (male) c. Age (Yr)	Outcomes	Summary of findings: comparison
Liu (2020) [China] 33	a. Randomized controlled trial (outpatient) b. Intervention: 36 (24), Control: 36 (25) c. Intervention: 69±8 a , Control: 69±8 a	PA/FS: FIM PS: SAS, SDS HRQoL: SF-36	Controls: no improve Intervention: improve in SAS α ¥ and SF-36 α ¥
Spielmanns (2021) [Switzerland] 34	a. Interventional study (rehabilitation unit) b. PG: 99 (57), LG:419 (206) c. PG: 68±10 a , LG: 69±11 a	PA/FS: CIRS and FIM PS: HAD HRQoL: CRQ, FT	PG: improve in FIM Δ £ and.FT Δ £ LG: improve in FIM δ and FT δ

CIRS: cumulative illness rating scale. COVID-19: coronavirus disease 2019. CRQ: chronic respiratory questionnaire. FIM: functional independence measure. FS: functional state. FT: feeling thermometer. HAD: hospital anxiety and depression scale. HRQoL: health-related quality of life. LG: lung diseases group. N: number. PA: physical activity. PG: post-COVID-19 group. PS: psychological state. SAS: self-rating anxiety scale. SDS: self-rating depression scale. SF-36: short-form 36. Yr: year.

Data were:

^a Mean±SD;

^* p<0.05;

For the study of Liu et al.:

^α p<0.05 before-PRP vs. after-PRP for the same group cases;

^¥ p<0.05 between-group difference cases vs. controls for the same period.

For the study of Spielmanns et al.:

^Δ p<0.05 before-PRP vs. after-PRP for the PG group;

^δ p<0.05 before-PRP vs. after-PRP for the LG group;

^£ p<0.05 between-group difference PG vs. LG for the same period.