Telerehabilitation in People With Long COVID: Complete Statistical Analysis

1. Trial at a Glance

This page covers the registry results for Telerehabilitation in People With Long COVID (NCT05205460), a randomized na study. The primary outcome is Change in Exercise Capacity: Peak Oxygen Uptake (VO2peak) From Baseline to 12 Weeks.

2. Clinical Question

The trial was designed to investigate telerehabilitation in people after COVID-19. The registry record identifies a randomized, parallel-group comparison and posts group-level changes in VO2peak. The reported comparison is a difference in mean change, with the education and self-exercise group contrasted against the telerehabilitation group. The endpoint description defines change as the 12-week value minus the baseline value, so a positive change represents an increase in VO2peak within a group. The comparison should be read together with the two group means and the uncertainty interval, rather than as an isolated number.

The registry record does not report further population details, such as eligibility criteria or participant characteristics. The question addressed by the posted data is therefore specifically about the recorded groups and outcome; the record does not establish how well the result applies to people with different characteristics or circumstances.

3. Trial Design

The registry lists this study as a randomized, parallel-group trial with no masking. Its status is completed. The listed enrollment is 182. The posted primary outcome results give an analyzed group size of 91 for home-based telerehabilitation and 91 for education and self-exercise. These are the group sizes attached to the posted outcome summaries; the registry record does not report further details about participant flow or the analysis population.

The active comparison was a home-based telehealth exercise program following graded exercise testing and an individual face-to-face counseling session. The comparator included the same described testing and counseling, followed by usual lifestyles without exercise reminders for 12 weeks. The telerehabilitation program description specifies 30 minutes per session, 3 sessions per week for 12 weeks. The remaining text in that intervention description is incomplete in the registry record, so no further schedule or program detail can be established from it.

The primary outcome was change in VO2peak from baseline to 12 weeks. The registry also lists secondary outcomes concerning physical activity amounts, exercise confidence, health-related quality of life, and sleep quality. Numeric results are posted for exercise confidence and sleep quality, while numerical results for physical activity amounts and health-related quality of life are not reported in the registry record.

The record gives the study start date as 2021-10-12 and the primary completion date as 2023-04-30. The phase is listed as NA. It names Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH) as sponsor. The registry record does not report a detailed protocol, the trial's original sample-size justification, or the statistical analysis plan. Random allocation describes how participants were assigned; it does not by itself establish how missing observations, protocol deviations, or outcome multiplicity were handled.

4. Participant Flow and Accounting

The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.

Overall Study

5. Baseline Characteristics

The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.

6. Primary Endpoint

The registry lists the primary outcome as Change in Exercise Capacity: Peak Oxygen Uptake (VO2peak) From Baseline to 12 Weeks, measured over Baseline, 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint is change in peak oxygen uptake, VO2peak, from baseline to 12 weeks, measured in ml/kg/min. The registry describes measurement by graded exercise testing using a cycling ergometer and an incremental ramp protocol. The test was to end when participants reported physical exhaustion or reached the stated maximal-capacity criterion, an RER of 1.2. The endpoint is defined as the 12-week VO2peak value minus the baseline value.

VO2peak is used as an indicator of exercise capacity. A higher VO2peak is described in the registry as indicating better exercise capacity. Reporting change rather than only the 12-week value expresses how the measurement moved over the study period, while the between-group comparison asks whether the mean changes differed between assigned groups.

As a continuous endpoint, the outcome can vary across a range of values rather than falling into a simple event/no-event category. The posted summaries therefore give a group mean and standard deviation for each arm, along with an estimated mean difference and an uncertainty interval. Those summaries describe the observed group-level changes; they do not by themselves show how individual participants changed or explain the reasons for any changes.

The registry does not report details such as the number of completed exercise tests at each time point, the handling of incomplete tests, or whether assessors were blinded. Those details are relevant when judging how endpoint measurements were obtained and analyzed, but cannot be inferred from the endpoint description alone.

7. Results Posted in the Registry

• Education and Self-exercise: mean 1.70 versus 2.40 on control; difference -0.70 (95% CI -1.94 to 0.54), standardized effect d = -0.16; z-test p = 0.267.

8. Secondary Efficacy Endpoints

The registry also posts results for secondary outcomes. For each outcome below, the endpoint type, the test applied to the posted summary statistics, the result and its interpretation are given in turn. Secondary endpoints are usually not adjusted for multiple testing, so they support rather than confirm the primary finding.

Change in Confidence Level of Exercise: Questionnaire of Self-Efficacy Items From Baseline to 12 Weeks

• Endpoint type: Continuous: a mean value per participant, compared as a difference in means.
• Test: Unadjusted two-sample z-test for the difference in means, using the posted standard deviations.
• Result:
  • Education and Self-exercise: mean -1.10 versus 1.20 on control; difference -2.30 (95% CI -3.01 to -1.59), standardized effect d = -0.94; z-test p = <0.001.
• Interpretation:
  • The 95% confidence interval excludes no difference, so the mean is statistically lower for Education and Self-exercise than for the control. This is an unadjusted, secondary comparison, so it is suggestive rather than confirmatory.

Change in Sleep Quality: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) From Baseline to 12 Weeks

• Endpoint type: Continuous: a mean value per participant, compared as a difference in means.
• Test: Unadjusted two-sample z-test for the difference in means, using the posted standard deviations.
• Result:
  • Education and Self-exercise: mean 0.70 versus 0.90 on control; difference -0.20 (95% CI -0.98 to 0.58), standardized effect d = -0.07; z-test p = 0.614.
• Interpretation:
  • The 95% confidence interval includes no difference, so these data do not show a statistically significant difference between Education and Self-exercise and the control. The interval gives the range of effects that remain compatible with the data.

The registry lists secondary measures of physical activity amounts, exercise confidence, health-related quality of life, and sleep quality. Among those measures, numerical summaries are posted for exercise confidence and sleep quality. Numerical results for physical activity amounts and health-related quality of life are not reported in the registry record. The posted secondary information is therefore incomplete relative to the full set of listed outcomes.

Across the secondary comparisons with numerical detail, the pattern is not uniform: one reported interval excludes zero and another includes zero. This differs from the primary comparison, whose interval includes zero. That contrast may be useful for understanding the range of posted findings, but the secondary results do not replace the primary endpoint or resolve its uncertainty. The measures assess different aspects of activity, confidence, quality of life, and sleep, and cannot be treated as interchangeable evidence about VO2peak.

In general, examining several outcomes increases the chance that at least one may appear unusual by chance, especially when each is tested without adjustment. The registry record does not report a multiplicity correction, a hierarchy among the secondary outcomes, or a prespecified approach for drawing conclusions across them. For that reason, unadjusted secondary results carry less weight as confirmatory evidence than a fully specified primary analysis would. The record also reports no detailed secondary analyses, so the posted summaries should be interpreted as descriptive comparisons with limited information about analysis choices.

Secondary outcomes can still provide useful context because they represent different measured domains. Their interpretation depends on how each score is defined, whether higher scores indicate improvement, the completeness of follow-up, and the analysis plan. Details of score direction and missing-data handling are not reported for every measure in the registry record. No broad conclusion across all listed secondary outcomes is supported by the incomplete numeric record.

Secondary outcomes registered for this trial, for reference (only those above were recalculated):

• Change in Physical Activity Amounts: Taiwan Version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire From Baseline to 12 Weeks
• Change in Confidence Level of Exercise: Questionnaire of Self-Efficacy Items From Baseline to 12 Weeks
• Change in Health-Related Quality of Life: Taiwan Version of World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Questionnaire From Baseline to 12 Weeks (WHOQOL-BREF)
• Change in Sleep Quality: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) From Baseline to 12 Weeks

9. Statistical Interpretation

10. Statistical Methods Explained

What does a mean change represent?

For this endpoint, each participant's change is defined as the 12-week value minus the baseline value. A positive value therefore indicates an increase in VO2peak over the measured period, while a negative value would indicate a decrease. The group mean is the average of those changes for the participants represented in that group's summary. It is a compact description: it does not show the distribution of individual changes, whether every participant changed in the same direction, or whether the mean is representative of each participant's experience.

The registry reports standard deviations of 4.4 for telerehabilitation and 4.1 for education and self-exercise. In general, a standard deviation describes how spread out observations are around their group mean. It is not the uncertainty interval for the mean and is not a range containing every participant's result. The group means and standard deviations describe the posted outcome summaries; more detailed participant-level distributions are not reported in the registry record.

How is the between-group contrast read?

The posted contrast is a mean difference, with education and self-exercise compared against home-based telerehabilitation. Its estimate is -0.7 ml/kg/min. The sign follows that comparison order: a negative estimate means the education and self-exercise mean change was lower than the telerehabilitation mean change in these posted summaries. Reversing the order would reverse the sign, but the underlying contrast would be the same. The displayed group means provide the context needed to understand that direction.

In general, a difference in means targets the average separation between two groups on a continuous measure. It is not the same as a change within one group, and it does not describe the probability that an individual participant will benefit or experience a particular outcome. The comparison is unadjusted and based on the posted summary statistics. The registry record lists no reported primary analysis details, so it does not establish whether a different model, covariate adjustment, or analysis population was used by the trial investigators.

What does the uncertainty interval communicate?

In general, a confidence interval shows a range of values compatible with the observed data under the method used to calculate it. A narrower interval represents greater statistical precision than a wider interval, all else being equal. An interval that includes zero does not rule out a zero difference at the interval's corresponding level. The primary interval includes zero, consistent with the unadjusted p-value of 0.267. The registry record does not describe the interval-calculation method or explicitly state its confidence level, so those details are not assumed.

An interval is not a statement that every value inside it is equally likely, nor does it account for every possible source of bias or uncertainty. It reflects sampling uncertainty under the calculation's assumptions. For this record, the recalculated comparison uses summary statistics, and details of any sponsor analysis are not reported in the registry record. Possible uncertainty about measurement, missing observations, or analysis choices is separate from the interval's sampling uncertainty.

How should the p-value be understood?

In general, a p-value measures how unusual data at least as incompatible with a specified null hypothesis would be if that hypothesis and the statistical model were correct. It is not the probability that the null hypothesis is true, and it does not quantify the size or practical importance of an effect. The primary unadjusted p-value is 0.267. Its interpretation should be paired with the mean difference and its interval, not used alone as a pass-or-fail label.

The registry record does not report a prespecified testing hierarchy or an adjustment for multiple outcomes. An unadjusted p-value does not account for testing several endpoints. It also does not address whether the analysis met the trial's intended assumptions, because the original statistical plan is not reported in the registry record.

Why do spread and sample size matter?

In general, the precision of a mean difference depends on the amount of variation in the outcome and the amount of information available in each group. Greater variability makes it harder to estimate a group contrast precisely; more observations can improve precision when the other assumptions are appropriate. For continuous outcomes, standard deviations help describe variability, while the uncertainty interval communicates precision for the contrast. The posted group sizes and standard deviations should be read alongside the estimate, not as independent evidence of a treatment effect.

Variation between participants can reflect real differences in measured outcomes as well as measurement variability. The registry does not provide participant-level data, so it is not possible to examine the outcome distribution, identify influential observations, or assess whether the summaries conceal subgroups with different patterns. These are general limitations of interpreting group summaries, not claims that any particular issue occurred in this trial.

What does randomization contribute?

In general, random assignment is intended to make comparison groups similar, on average, with respect to both measured and unmeasured characteristics at assignment. It supports a causal interpretation when the allocation process is properly implemented and the analysis preserves the randomized comparison. Randomization does not guarantee exact balance, prevent missing data, or ensure that participants follow their assigned program. The registry identifies the trial as randomized but does not report the sequence-generation or allocation-concealment procedures, adherence, or a detailed analysis population. Those aspects therefore cannot be evaluated from the registry record.

The study is listed as having no masking. In general, lack of masking can matter for outcomes influenced by participant expectations, behavior, or assessment. VO2peak is measured by an exercise test, but the registry record does not report whether test assessors were masked or how outcome measurement was standardized beyond the described testing protocol. That absence is a reporting limitation, not evidence that the measurements were biased.

11. Confidence Intervals and Precision

The primary mean difference is -0.7 ml/kg/min, with an uncertainty interval that extends from -1.936 to 0.536 in the posted calculation. The interval crosses zero. This means the reported data are compatible with no difference and with differences in either direction under the interval method. The associated unadjusted p-value is 0.267. Together, the estimate and interval indicate that the direction and size of the between-group contrast are not pinned down precisely by these summaries.

In general, an uncertainty interval is more informative than a point estimate alone because it displays a range of values compatible with the data under the calculation's assumptions. Its width reflects statistical precision, not clinical importance. A narrow interval can still include effects that matter, and a wide interval can include both small and larger effects. A threshold for a clinically important VO2peak difference is not reported in the registry record, so the interval cannot be classified against such a threshold.

The interval and p-value are unadjusted recalculations from posted summary statistics. The record does not report the sponsor's own inferential analysis or the exact confidence level and method used for the interval. The interval also does not incorporate uncertainty arising from possible missing outcome data, measurement issues, or unreported analytic decisions. These limits matter when interpreting precision: statistical uncertainty around a summary contrast is only one part of the uncertainty in a trial result.

12. Planning a Similar Trial: Sample Size

This is a planning illustration, not a re-evaluation of the original trial. It asks: if a new study wanted to detect a difference like the one observed, or a smaller one, how large would it need to be? It is deliberately not “observed power” of the finished trial, which is not a meaningful quantity.

The sample-size figures are planning illustrations for a future study, not a description of the enrollment needed under the trial's original design. For continuous outcomes, the displayed figures are participants per arm, not totals across arms or total events. The assumptions listed for these illustrations are a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between the two arms, a normal approximation, and an effect to detect set to the stated fraction of the observed effect. The trial's own original sample-size assumptions are not reported in the registry record.

For the primary outcome, the row planning for 100% of the observed effect lists 580 participants per arm for 80% power and 776 participants per arm for 90% power. The row for 75% of the observed effect lists 1,031 participants per arm for 80% power and 1,379 participants per arm for 90% power. The row for 50% of the observed effect lists 2,318 participants per arm for 80% power and 3,103 participants per arm for 90% power.

In plain terms, 80% power is the planning probability of detecting the specified effect at the stated significance level if that effect is real and the assumptions hold; 90% power uses a higher planned probability of detection. Smaller effects require more participants to detect under the same assumptions, which is why the figures rise as the effect fraction becomes smaller. These illustrations are based on the observed effect and are not observed power. They should not be read as a judgment about whether the completed trial was properly designed.

For other continuous outcomes, the figures likewise refer to participants per arm. Time-to-event planning figures, if present, would instead refer to total events, but the outcomes posted in this record are continuous. Any curve accompanying the planning values should be read as displaying the same assumed relationship between a target effect and the required sample size, not as additional trial results.

13. How the Sample Size Is Derived

Power is the probability that a study of a given size rejects the null hypothesis when a specific true effect exists. It depends on four things: the effect to detect, the variability of the outcome, the significance level (here a two-sided α of 0.05, so z_1−α/2 = 1.960) and the desired power (z_1−β = 0.842 for 80% and 1.282 for 90%).

Formula

n is the number of participants in each arm, Δ is the difference in means to detect and σ is the common standard deviation.

Worked calculation for this trial

1. Observed difference Δ = -0.700; pooled standard deviation σ = 4.253.
2. n = 2 × (1.96 + 0.842)² × 4.253² / -0.700² = 579.4, rounded up to 580 participants per arm for 80% power.

The smaller-effect rows in the table above repeat the same calculation with the effect multiplied by 0.75 and 0.5 (for ratios, applied to the logarithm of the ratio).

R code

alpha <- 0.05
z_a   <- qnorm(1 - alpha / 2)          # two-sided
delta <- -0.7                      # observed difference in means
sigma <- 4.25264623499298                     # pooled standard deviation
n_per_arm <- function(power, frac = 1) {
  ceiling(round(2 * (z_a + qnorm(power))^2 * sigma^2 / (delta * frac)^2, 6))
}
for (f in c(1, 0.75, 0.5))
  cat(sprintf("%3.0f%% of observed effect: n per arm = %s (80%% power), %s (90%% power)\n", 100 * f,
              format(n_per_arm(0.80, f), big.mark = ","), format(n_per_arm(0.90, f), big.mark = ",")))

# Check against R's built-in function (t-based, so very slightly larger)
cat("power.t.test:", round(power.t.test(delta = delta, sd = sigma, power = 0.80)$n, 1), "\n")

# Simulation: exact two-sample t-test using simulated means and variances
set.seed(5205460)
n    <- n_per_arm(0.80)
reps <- 20000
m_diff <- rnorm(reps, delta, sigma * sqrt(2 / n))             # difference in sample means
s2     <- sigma^2 * rchisq(reps, 2 * (n - 1)) / (2 * (n - 1))   # pooled sample variance
tstat  <- m_diff / sqrt(s2 * 2 / n)
cat(sprintf("Simulated power at n = %s per arm: %.3f (%d replicates)\n", format(n, big.mark = ","), mean(abs(tstat) > qt(0.975, 2 * (n - 1))), reps))

Output from running the code

100% of observed effect: n per arm = 580 (80% power), 776 (90% power)
 75% of observed effect: n per arm = 1,031 (80% power), 1,379 (90% power)
 50% of observed effect: n per arm = 2,318 (80% power), 3,103 (90% power)
power.t.test: 580.3 
Simulated power at n = 580 per arm: 0.798 (20000 replicates)

The simulation draws many sets of group means and variances at the planned sample size and counts how often the two-sample t-test rejects the null. It should land close to the target power; at very small required sample sizes it can fall below it, because the normal approximation is rough there.

14. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations

The registry lists one primary outcome and several secondary outcomes, but the record does not report a statistical plan describing how conclusions across those measures were to be controlled. In general, testing multiple outcomes can increase the chance of obtaining one apparently notable result even when no true differences exist. A multiplicity strategy might specify a hierarchy, adjust significance thresholds, or clearly label secondary analyses as exploratory. No such strategy is reported in the registry record. The posted p-values should therefore be read as unadjusted rather than as family-wise or otherwise multiplicity-adjusted evidence.

The record lists 13 outcome measures and reports no analyses in its analysis listings. It nevertheless contains outcome summaries and recalculated comparisons. The sponsor's inferential analyses, model specifications, and any prespecified analysis population are not reported in the registry record. It is not possible to determine whether the posted outcome summaries reflect an intention-to-treat analysis, a per-protocol analysis, or another population definition.

Missing data are another important uncertainty. The registry record does not report how many participants completed each assessment, whether outcome values were missing, why values were missing, or how missing observations were handled. It also does not describe sensitivity analyses for missing data. The posted group sizes attached to the summaries do not, by themselves, establish that every randomized participant contributed a complete outcome or explain any exclusions.

In general, missingness can affect an estimate if the availability of outcome data is related to participants' outcomes or group assignment. This is a general statistical concern, not evidence that missing data affected this trial. Without flow details and a stated method, the impact cannot be assessed from the registry record. The record also does not report protocol deviations or adherence information needed to understand whether participants followed their assigned programs.

These omissions limit assessment of the strength and reproducibility of the inferential claims. They do not demonstrate that the trial analysis was incorrect; they mean that important analytic decisions are not reported in the registry record.

15. Safety Results

The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.

Deaths

Other (non-serious) adverse events

Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 0% reporting threshold.

The registry posts zero serious adverse events and zero other adverse events for the home-based telerehabilitation group, with 91 at risk in each category. It posts the same figures for the education and self-exercise group, also with 91 at risk in each category. Deaths are listed as zero in both groups. No serious adverse event terms are listed.

These figures describe the adverse-event counts recorded in the registry. They should be read as posted counts, not as proof that no adverse event of any kind occurred. The registry record does not provide event definitions, collection procedures, exposure time, severity breakdowns beyond the serious/other categories, or detail on how events were attributed. It also does not report whether adverse-event information was actively solicited or how complete follow-up was for safety reporting.

In general, a zero count is most informative when the methods for collecting events and the completeness of observation are clear. Here, the figures alone do not establish comparative safety or rule out uncommon events. They are a limited summary of the recorded safety information, not a basis for medical advice.

16. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean

The posted primary data show mean increases in VO2peak in both groups over the 12-week measurement period. The telerehabilitation group had a higher mean change than the education and self-exercise group, but the estimated between-group difference is -0.7 ml/kg/min when expressed as education and self-exercise relative to telerehabilitation. The uncertainty interval crosses zero, and the unadjusted p-value is 0.267. The result therefore leaves substantial uncertainty about whether the groups differed and about the direction and size of any underlying contrast.

This does not mean the groups have been shown to be identical. A result that does not distinguish a difference from zero can reflect limited precision as well as a small underlying difference. Nor does the numerical direction of the estimate prove that one program caused a change. Randomization is a useful design feature, but interpretation also depends on implementation, follow-up, missing data, and analysis details that are not reported in the registry record.

The outcome is a measured change in exercise capacity, not a direct measure of every aspect of health or daily functioning. The registry lists other outcomes, but numeric results are not available for all of them. The posted results do not establish whether participants experienced changes in symptoms, quality of life, or function beyond the measures listed and reported. They also do not show whether any observed changes continued after the 12-week follow-up.

Statistical evidence and practical importance are distinct. The registry does not state a threshold for a meaningful VO2peak change, and the uncertainty interval cannot be judged against an unreported threshold. The data should therefore be described as an imprecise group comparison rather than as proof of benefit, lack of benefit, or equivalence. Any broader interpretation would need fuller reporting of participant characteristics, outcome completion, analysis methods, and the context in which the measure is meaningful.

17. Why This Trial Matters Statistically

This trial is statistically informative because it reports a randomized parallel-group comparison and gives group-level changes for a continuous primary outcome. It allows readers to distinguish the observed within-group changes from the between-group contrast: the fact that both group means increased does not, on its own, show that the groups changed differently. The comparison estimate and uncertainty interval are central to that distinction.

The record also illustrates why precision matters. The point estimate favors a numerically higher mean change in the telerehabilitation group, but the interval includes zero. Reporting the estimate alongside its uncertainty avoids reducing the interpretation to the direction of a point estimate or to a single p-value. The planning illustrations also demonstrate, under their stated assumptions, that planning for smaller effects calls for larger sample sizes.

At the same time, the record highlights limits of registry reporting. It identifies multiple secondary outcomes but does not provide numerical results for all of them or describe a multiplicity strategy. It does not report the original design assumptions, detailed analysis plan, analysis population, or missing-data procedures. These gaps make it harder to assess whether the posted summaries represent the prespecified analysis and how robust the conclusions are to analytic choices.

The statistical value of the record is therefore both in the information it contains and in the uncertainty it leaves. The primary result can be interpreted as a group-level estimate with limited precision, while the omitted methods and outcome details constrain stronger conclusions. This distinction is useful across clinical research: a transparent estimate, its uncertainty, and the reporting limits should be considered together.

18. Limitations

• The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
• Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.

The registry record provides limited information about who enrolled beyond describing the population as people with Long COVID and identifying COVID-19 as the condition. Eligibility criteria, participant characteristics, and the setting details needed to judge applicability are not reported in the registry record. The result cannot therefore be assumed to represent people with different characteristics or care contexts.

The intervention description is incomplete: after describing the home exercise schedule, the text ends mid-description. The available record does not establish all aspects of the telerehabilitation program, such as the remaining program content, monitoring, progression, or adherence. The comparator is described as usual lifestyles without exercise reminders for 12 weeks after testing and counseling, but further details about what education was given are not reported.

The record does not report participant flow, completion of the 12-week assessment, adherence, protocol deviations, or reasons for missing outcome measurements. It gives group sizes with the outcome summaries, but does not explain how those groups relate to all randomized participants or how any missing observations were handled. The analysis plan, analysis population, and sponsor-reported inferential results are also not reported in the registry record.

There is no masking listed. The record does not state whether outcome assessors were masked, how test quality was monitored, or whether the planned testing procedure was completed consistently. It also does not provide a clinically meaningful threshold for interpreting a VO2peak change. The secondary results are incomplete, and the record does not report how multiple outcomes were handled statistically. These are reporting limitations; they do not establish that a specific bias or operational problem occurred.

19. Related Tutorials

20. Related Statistical Calculators

21. Sources

• ClinicalTrials.gov: Telerehabilitation in People With Long COVID — NCT05205460.
• Registry record last updated 2025-03-11; status last verified 2025-02.
• Results first posted 2025-03-11.
• Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
• Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.

22. Record Summary

The registry record describes NCT05205460, “Telerehabilitation in People With Long COVID,” as a completed randomized parallel-group trial with no masking. The sponsor is Tri-Service General Hospital (TSGH). The listed start date is 2021-10-12, and the primary completion date is 2023-04-30. The primary outcome is change in VO2peak from baseline to 12 weeks.

The posted primary means are 2.4 ml/kg/min for home-based telerehabilitation and 1.7 ml/kg/min for education and self-exercise. The estimated difference, expressed as education and self-exercise relative to telerehabilitation, is -0.7 ml/kg/min, with an interval that includes zero and an unadjusted p-value of 0.267. The registry also posts selected secondary outcome summaries and adverse-event counts. It does not report the original sample-size assumptions, detailed analysis plan, missing-data approach, or numerical results for every listed secondary outcome.