Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36130789›Full record

SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2022

Effectiveness of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Md Nazim Uzzaman, Dhiraj Agarwal, Soo Chin Chan, Julia Patrick Engkasan, G M Monsur Habib, Nik Sherina Hanafi, Tracy Jackson, Paul Jebaraj, Ee Ming Khoo, Fatim Tahirah Mirza and 3 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

13 authors.

Md Nazim UzzamanNIHR Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE), The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-6299
Dhiraj AgarwalVadu Rural Health Program, KEM Hospital and Research centre, Pune, India.
Soo Chin ChanFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Julia Patrick EngkasanFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0599-4908
G M Monsur HabibCommunity Respiratory Centre, Bangladesh Primary Care Respiratory Society, Khulna, Bangladesh.
Nik Sherina HanafiFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Tracy JacksonNIHR Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE), The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Paul JebarajRural Unit for Health and Social Affairs, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
Ee Ming KhooFaculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3191-1264
Fatim Tahirah MirzaFaculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Selangor, Malaysia.
Hilary PinnockNIHR Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE), The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5976-8386
Ranita Hisham ShunmugamLibrary, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Roberto A RabinovichMRC Centre for Information Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK roberto.rabinovich@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite proven effectiveness for people with chronic respiratory diseases, practical barriers to attending centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (centre-PR) limit accessibility. We aimed to review the clinical effectiveness, components and completion rates of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (home-PR) compared to centre-PR or usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using Cochrane methodology, we searched (January 1990 to August 2021) six electronic databases using a PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study type) search strategy, assessed Cochrane risk of bias, performed meta-analysis and narrative synthesis to answer our objectives and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework to rate certainty of evidence.

resultsWe identified 16 studies (1800 COPD patients; 11 countries). The effects of home-PR on exercise capacity and/or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared to either centre-PR (n=7) or usual care (n=8); one study used both comparators. Compared to usual care, home-PR significantly improved exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.32-1.44; p=0.002) and HRQoL (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.88--0.36; p<0.001). Compared to centre-PR, home-PR showed no significant difference in exercise capacity (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.25-0.05; p=0.21) or HRQoL (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.15-0.17; p=0.87).

conclusionHome-PR is as effective as centre-PR in improving functional exercise capacity and quality of life compared to usual care, and is an option to enable access to pulmonary rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeExerciseExercise ToleranceHumans

Identifiers

PMID36130789
PMCPMC9724887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.