ArticleLung2015
Maintaining Gains Following Pulmonary Rehabilitation.
Article in Lung, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of dyspnoea-oriented hypnosis as an adjunct to pulmonary rehabilitation on the affective dimension of dyspnoea and physical activity level: a randomised controlled trial.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Monthly Follow-Ups of Functional Status in People with COPD: A Longitudinal Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Pulmonary Rehabilitation Reduces Subjective Fatigue in COPD: A Responder Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
- Strategies to improve anxiety and depression in patients with COPD: a mental health perspective.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an accepted intervention for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Despite initial improvements following PR, many patients eventually return to baseline function or decline even further. The aim of this study is to look at long-term (>1 year) outcomes following PR.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study of patients who had completed PR. Participants were invited for an assessment consisting of participant interviews and clinical assessments using standardised instruments.
results129 patients between 2003 and 2012 completed rehabilitation and were eligible. 88 patients were included in the analysis. The mean time of the long-term assessment was 22 months following PR. The mean age was 71 years. Mean FEV1 was 46%. There was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in the incremental shuttle walk test distance of 29.0 m following PR but this gain was lost at the long-term reassessment. Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores showed a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in all four domains but only the domains of dyspnoea and fatigue remained statistically significant (p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively) at the long-term reassessment. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores reduced following rehabilitation but only the anxiety component was statistically significant (p < 0.01). These improvements persisted at the long-term reassessment but were not statically significant.
conclusionsThis study confirms that many of the functional gains achieved in PR are lost in the longer term. Regular surveillance or monitoring of these patients post-PR is important to identify those requiring further intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26116155What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.