ArticleTrials2021
Individualized, low-cost and accessible pulmonary rehabilitation program based on functional clinical tests for individuals with COPD-a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Network Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Different Types of Traditional Chinese Exercises on Pulmonary Function, Endurance Capacity and Quality of Life in Patients With COPD.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Individualised monitoring programme for pulmonary rehabilitation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Effect of Liuzijue on pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: study protocol for a multicenter, non-randomized, prospective study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Advancing Sustainable Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Latin America.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Article
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
Abstract
backgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present pulmonary and extrapulmonary impairments. The strategies used to mitigate these impairments are pulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRP). However, there is limited access to PRP in specialized centers and the study of low-cost home rehabilitation programs had non-individualized prescription, which might have led to insignificant positive effects. So, it is important to develop new low-cost protocols that involve individualized prescription, as well as physiotherapist supervision. This study describes an accessible, low-cost, and individualized pulmonary rehabilitation protocol and compare its results when performed with or without a weekly physiotherapist-supervised session on patients with COPD.
methodsThis is a descriptive protocol of a clinical trial, randomized, single-blinded, and type of framework is superiority conducted at the Spirometry and Respiratory Physical Therapy Laboratory of the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar). The trial is registered in the Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec) URL: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-533hht/ with Register Number UTN code U1111-1220-8245. The sample size is 50 patients and is calculated using the results of a pilot study. DISCUSSION-POTENTIAL IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: It is expected that the low-cost and new supervised rehabilitation program complemented with home exercises will present positive results, especially on exercise capacity, which will make available a more accessible and effective PRP for patients with COPD.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov U1111-1220-8245 . Registered on September 20, 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.