Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28363923›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2017

Interactive web-based pulmonary rehabilitation programme: a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Emma Chaplin, Stacey Hewitt, Lindsay Apps, John Bankart, Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob, Sally Boyce, Mike Morgan, Johanna Williams, Sally Singh

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Web-based pulmonary telehabilitation: a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Emma ChaplinLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Stacey HewittLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Lindsay AppsLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
John BankartDepartment of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Ruth Pulikottil-JacobHealth Sciences Research Institute, Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sally BoyceLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Mike MorganLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Johanna WilliamsLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sally SinghLeicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0711-25127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine if an interactive web-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme is a feasible alternative to conventional PR.

designRandomised controlled feasibility trial.

settingParticipants with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were recruited from PR assessments, primary care and community rehabilitation programmes. Patients randomised to conventional rehabilitation started the programme according to the standard care at their referred site on the next available date.

participants103 patients were recruited to the study and randomised: 52 to conventional rehabilitation (mean (±SD) age 66 (±8) years, Medical Research Council (MRC) 3 (IQR2-4)); 51 to the web arm (mean (±SD) age 66 (±10) years, MRC 3 (IQR2-4)). Participants had to be willing to participate in either arm of the trial, have internet access and be web literate.

interventionsPatients randomised to the web-based programme worked through the website, exercising and recording their progress as well as reading educational material. Conventional PR consisted of twice weekly, 2 hourly sessions (an hour for exercise training and an hour for education). OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment rates, eligibility, patient preference and dropout and completion rates for both programmes were collected. Standard outcomes for a PR assessment including measures of exercise capacity and quality of life questionnaires were also evaluated.

resultsA statistically significant improvement (p≤0.01) was observed within each group in the endurance shuttle walk test (WEB: mean change 189±211.1; PR classes: mean change 184.5±247.4 s) and Chronic Respiratory disease Questionnaire-Dyspnoea (CRQ-D; WEB: mean change 0.7±1.2; PR classes: mean change 0.8±1.0). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in any outcome. Dropout rates were higher in the web-based programme (57% vs 23%).

conclusionsAn interactive web-based PR programme is feasible and acceptable when compared with conventional PR. Future trials maybe around choice-based PR programmes for select patients enabling stratification of patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN03142263; Results.

Indexed as

InternetAgedExercise TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRespiratory TherapySelf-ManagementTherapy, Computer-AssistedUnited Kingdomchronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseInternetpulmonary rehabilitationSPACE for COPDWeb-based

Identifiers

PMID28363923
PMCPMC5387978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.