ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2025
Outcomes of Virtual Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Oxygen-Dependent COPD Patients.
Article in Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.), 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.
- Multi parameter respiratory training for pulmonary rehabilitation in AECOPD a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Who Enrolls After Referral to Virtual Pulmonary Rehabilitation? A Descriptive Comparison.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a proven yet underutilized intervention in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. However, neither the safety nor the effectiveness of virtual PR is established for patients with advanced disease and higher disease severity, particularly those requiring supplemental oxygen. We performed a retrospective review of 167 patients to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of virtual PR in oxygen-dependent versus nonoxygen-dependent COPD patients. Our primary outcome, attendance, was high (88% of sessions were attended by both groups). Adverse events occurred in only 2 (1%) participants, one in each group. Both groups showed significant postintervention improvements in dyspnea and depression scores (COPD Assessment Test [CAT], modified Medical Research Council [mMRC], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) and functional exercise capacity (1-minute sit-to-stand [1MSTS]), with the improvements approaching or exceeding the established minimal clinically important difference values. When comparing the oxygen-dependent and nonoxygen groups, there were no significant differences in the degree of improvement for CAT, PHQ-9, and 1MSTS. For mMRC, those on oxygen did improve by 0.3 less than those not on oxygen (
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.