ReviewPloS one2022
Effects of exercise-based home pulmonary rehabilitation on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An overview of systematic review.
Review in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Point: Center-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation Is the Standard.Respiratory care · 2024Review
- Pulmonary responses following cardiac rehabilitation and the relationship with functional outcomes in children and young adults with heart disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Eosinophilic Airway Diseases: From Pathophysiological Mechanisms to Clinical Practice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Treatment patterns in patients with stable COPD in China: analysis of a prospective, 52-week, nationwide, observational cohort study (REAL).Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical research on exercise-based home pulmonary rehabilitation (HPR) effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is rising, as are associated systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). However, different SRs/MAs vary in outcome indicators, analysis methodologies, literature quality, and findings. This overview aimed to describe the findings of these SRs/MAs and assess their methodological quality.
methodsFrom inception until April 2022, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wan Fang. Two researchers searched these SRs/MAs separately, collected the data, and cross-checked it using predetermined rules. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of each contained SR/MA. The evidence was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 (PRISMA-2009). The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the validity of the results.
resultsA total of 433 records were found, with 44 chosen for full-text review. There were 11 SRs/MAs that matched the inclusion criteria. Our overview included studies published from 2010 to 2022. According to the AMSTAR 2 tool, one had low methodological quality, while the other 10 SRs/MAs had very low quality. The PRISMA statement revealed a low rate of complete reporting for eight items. The GRADE tool, on the other hand, revealed that the evidence quality for most outcomes was very low to moderate.
conclusionAccording to current research, exercise-based HPR may benefit COPD patients. Nevertheless, this finding is restricted by the low quality of the included SRs/MAs. And more high-quality and large-sample studies are needed in the future. PROSPERO: ID: CRD42022322768. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails.
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.