ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Pulmonary rehabilitation under supervision of health-professional at institute versus conventional exercise-based pulmonary rehabilitation at home in COPD patients: A longitudinal cohort study.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Four-Year Management of Severe COPD-OSA Overlap Syndrome with Phased, Closed-Loop Respiratory Rehabilitation: A Case Report.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Inspiratory Muscle Training for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
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
objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulmonary rehabilitation under the supervision of health professionals at the institute versus conventional exercise-based pulmonary rehabilitation at home in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients.
methodsPatients of COPD received pulmonary rehabilitation under the supervision of a professional at the institute (PI cohort, n = 115) or self-driven traditional Chinese methods-based pulmonary rehabilitation at home (CE cohort, n = 127) or did not receive any type of pulmonary rehabilitation (ME cohort, n = 155). All patients received inhaled pharmacological treatment for COPD.
resultsBefore commencing inhaled pharmacological treatment with or without pulmonary rehabilitation (BT) COPD patients had 5 (5-4) / patient BODE (body-mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity) index score and 12 (13-12) / patient exacerbations (in 6-months) reported. After 6 months of inhaled pharmacological treatment for COPD with or without pulmonary rehabilitation (AT), a six-minute walking test was improved and the BODE index score and exacerbations during 6 months were decreased for patients of the PI cohort as compared to BT conditions and compared to those of the CE and ME cohorts in AT conditions (p < 0.05 for all). Patients of PI, CE, and ME cohorts had the risk of under treatment for <0.01 BODE index score, <1.32 BODE index score, and <3.14 BODE index score, respectively.
conclusionsChinese patients with COPD have worse clinical conditions. After 6 months of inhaled pharmacological treatment for COPD with pulmonary rehabilitations at institutes improves the conditions of COPD patients.
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.