Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34882313›Full record

Trial reportThoracic cancer2022

Effect of physical manipulation pulmonary rehabilitation on lung cancer patients after thoracoscopic lobectomy.

Ting Zhou, Chao Sun

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Thoracic cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Impact of preoperative respiratory training on early postoperative recovery in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ting ZhouThoracic surgery Department, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9628-7346
Chao SunNursing Department, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology; Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8055-1640
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo introduce a new postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation program named physical manipulation pulmonary rehabilitation (PMPR) and to explore the effect of perioperative management, including PMPR, on patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after thoracoscopic lobectomy.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted between April and June 2021 at the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Beijing Hospital. Adult patients with NSCLC who had undergone thoracoscopic lobectomy were allocated to the treatment and control groups using a random number table. The treatment group received both conventional pulmonary rehabilitation (CVPR) and 14 days of PMPR after surgery; the control group patients received CVPR only. PMPR included relaxing and exercising the intercostal muscles, thoracic costal joint and abdominal breathing muscles. Pulmonary function tests and the 6-min walk test were conducted preoperatively and 7, 14, 21 and 28 days postoperatively. The postoperative length of hospital stay, chest tube retention time and postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded. The baseline data, pulmonary function parameters and prognosis were compared with t- and chi-square tests between the two groups.

resultsA total of 86 patients were enrolled, and 44 patients were allocated to the treatment group. There were no significant differences in the baseline data for age, sex, body mass index, basic disease, surgical plan or preoperative pulmonary function between the two groups (all p > 0.05). The peak expiratory flow of patients in the treatment group was higher than that of those in the control group 21 days after surgery (316 ± 95 vs. 272 ± 103 l/min, respectively, p = 0.043), and forced expiratory volume in the first second on day 28 after surgery was greater than that in the control group (2.1 ± 0.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.3 L, respectively, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in forced vital capacity or 6-min walk test scores (both p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidences of pneumonia and atelectasis between the two groups (both p > 0.05). The postoperative length of hospital stay (3.3 ± 1.3 vs. 3.9 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.043) and chest tube retention time (66 ± 30 vs. 81 ± 35 h, p = 0.036) in the treatment group were shorter than those in the control group.

conclusionsWe determined that PMPR could improve early lung function in patients with NSCLC after thoracoscopic lobectomy, and that chest tube retention time and length of hospital stay were shortened.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsAdultChest TubesHumansLength of StayLungPneumonectomyThoracic Surgery, Video-Assistedlung cancerpulmonary rehabilitationrespiratory trainingthoracoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34882313
PMCPMC8807280
OpenAlexW4200512194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.