ArticlePrimary health care research & development2024
Feasibility of a home-designed respiratory rehabilitation program for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2024. 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.
- Global trends and research hotspots in pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a bibliometric analysis (2011-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
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
backgroundAccording to international guidelines, respiratory rehabilitation (RR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a cornerstone of standard non-pharmacological treatment.
aimsTo evaluate feasibility of a home-designed RR program and analyze its medium-term impact on respiratory parameters and quality of life.
methodsThis was a prospective study involving 74 COPD patients enrolled in January 2019 and put on inhaled bronchodilator treatment associated with RR at home following a written protocol, for 16 weeks. The comparative statistical analysis highlights the difference before and after RR in terms of clinical and functional respiratory parameters as well as in terms of quality of life (assessed on the short form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire). The comparison involves RR-adherent patients versus non-adherent patients.
resultsMean age was 66.7 ± 8.3 years with a median of 67 years. All patients were smokers, out of which 42 patients (57%) did not quit yet. Forty-one percent of patients were frequent exacerbators. The average COPD assessment test (CAT) score in our patients was 23. The average 6-minutes walk distance (MWD) was 304 m. The BODE index in our patients was 4.11 on average. The RR program was followed by 36 patients (48%). Thirty patients (40%) applied it at least twice a week. RR-adherent patients had an average CAT score decreasing from 23 to 14.5 (
conclusionsRR is a key non-pharmacological treatment for COPD. Its interest originates from its multidisciplinary nature, hence its effectiveness in several respiratory parameters. Our study reflects the feasibility of home-designed protocols in the absence of contraindications. We highlight also the positive impact on quality of life after RR at home.
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.