ReviewPloS one2023
The role of pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: An overview of systematic reviews.
Review in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Beneficial Impact of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Review of the Current Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been studied in several systematic reviews (SRs), but no definitive conclusions have been drawn due to the wide variation in the quality and outcomes of the studies. And there are no studies to assess the quality of relevant published SRs. This overview aims to determine the effectiveness of PR in patients with IPF and to summarize and critically evaluate the risk of bias, methodological, and evidence quality of SRs on this related topic.
methodsWith no language restrictions, eight databases were searched from inception to March 10, 2023. The literature search, screening, and data extraction were carried out separately by two reviewers. We assessed the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, the reporting quality using PRISMA statements, the methodological quality using AMSTAR-2, and the evidence quality using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).
resultsSeven SRs from 2018-2023 (including 1836 participants) on PR for the treatment of IPF were selected, all of which included patients with a definitive diagnosis of IPF. After strict evaluation by the ROBIS tool and AMSTAR-2 tool, 42.86% of the SRs had a high risk of bias and 85.71% of the SRs had critically low methodological quality in this overview. PR might be effective for patients with IPF on exercise capacity, quality of life, and pulmonary function-related outcomes, but we did not find high quality evidence to confirm the effectiveness.
conclusionPR may appear to be an effective and safe treatment for patients with IPF, but the results of this overview should be interpreted dialectically and with caution. Further high-quality, rigorous studies are urgently needed to draw definitive conclusions and provide scientific evidence.
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.