SynthesisPloS one2025
The impact of pulmonary rehabilitation on sleep quality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Wearable Sleep Measures May Improve Machine Learning Prediction of Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation Engagement Among Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a significant component of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management, but whether it has any impact on patient sleep quality is unknown.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the impact of PR on sleep quality in patients with COPD. Searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were performed, and data were extracted from relevant studies. Meta-analysis with the random effects model was performed to determine if PR is associated with any difference in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).
resultsA total of 16 studies were included in this review with 1,478 patients, of which 1,169 took part in PR. The PR programmes were variable, some being 8-week programmes while others were 12-week, and some lasted for 6 months. The pooled results of 372 patients suggest that PR is associated with a significant improvement in the PSQI (mean difference 2.33 95% CI 0.46 to 4.20, I2 = 93%, 6 studies). Removal of one study, significantly reduced the statistical heterogeneity and the effect size (mean difference 0.91 95% CI 0.35-1.48, I2 = 0%, 5 studies). For other outcomes such as sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and number of awakenings, there were no consistencies to suggest any benefit associated with PR.
conclusionsPR appears to be associated with improvements in sleep quality in patients with COPD. More studies are needed to determine what the ideal PR programme is that best improves sleep quality and whether certain patients benefit more compared to others.
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.