ArticleERJ open research2024
Upper-limb interval
Article in ERJ open research, 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.
- Optimising upper-limb exercise in patients with COPD: another step towards personalised pulmonary rehabilitation?ERJ open research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Upper-limb exercise is recommended for patients with COPD, albeit there are limited data concerning the optimal modality to implement. We compared interval (INT-EX) to continuous (CONT-EX) upper-limb exercise in terms of exercise tolerance, ventilatory and metabolic responses when both conditions were sustained at an equivalent work rate. Methods: 26 stable COPD patients undertook three upper-limb exercise sessions to initially establish peak work rate (PWR) Results: 20 patients (76.9%) had longer tolerance during INT-EX, while six out of 26 (23.1%) exhibited longer tolerance during CONT-EX. The average endurance time was 434.1±184.7 and 315.7±128.7 s for INT-EX and CONT-EX, respectively. During INT-EX at isotime ( Conclusion: INT-EX is more sustainable than CONT-EX for the majority of COPD patients with moderate obstruction, leading to lower dynamic hyperinflation and symptoms at isotime. Further studies need to define the benefits of its application during pulmonary rehabilitation.
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.