ArticleBMJ open2021
Minimal versus specialist equipment in the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimal vs Specialized Exercise Equipment for Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Exercise intensity during a minimal equipment circuit session in adults with chronic respiratory disease.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR), an exercise and education programme for people with chronic lung disease, aims to improve exercise capacity, breathlessness and quality of life. Most evidence to support PR is from trials that use specialist exercise equipment, for example, treadmills (PR-gym). However, a significant proportion of programmes do not have access to specialist equipment with training completed with minimal exercise equipment (PR-min). There is a paucity of robust literature examining the efficacy of supervised, centre-based PR-min. We aim to determine whether an 8-week supervised, centre-based PR-min programme is non-inferior to a standard 8-week supervised, centre-based PR-gym programme in terms of exercise capacity and health outcomes for patients with chronic lung disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Parallel, two-group, assessor-blinded and statistician-blinded, non-inferiority randomised trial. 436 participants will be randomised using minimisation at the individual level with a 1:1 allocation to PR-min (intervention) or PR-gym (control). Assessment will take place pre-PR (visit 1), post-PR (visit 2) and 12 months following visit 1 (visit 3). Exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test), dyspnoea (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ)-Dyspnoea), health-related quality of life (CRQ), frailty (Short Physical Performance Battery), muscle strength (isometric quadriceps maximum voluntary contraction), patient satisfaction (Global Rating of Change Questionnaire), health economic as well as safety and trial process data will be measured. The primary outcome is change in exercise capacity between visit 1 and visit 2. Two sample t-tests on an intention to treat basis will be used to estimate the difference in mean primary and secondary outcomes between patients randomised to PR-gym and PR-min. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority have approved the study (18/LO/0315). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international conferences, disseminated through social media, patient and public routes and directly shared with stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16196765.
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.