ArticleBMJ open2025
Pulmonary rehabilitation for patients receiving lung cancer radiotherapy: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation compliance among patients with lung cancer: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRadiotherapy (RT) can cause a range of negative impacts in addition to the intended treatment impacts. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) may improve the physical and psychological conditions of patients with lung cancer receiving RT, but specific evidence is lacking. This review mapped the evidence on PR in patients with lung cancer receiving RT for intervention characteristics and outcome assessments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Proquest, Web of Science, CNKI and WanFang were searched for studies from January 2003 to April 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and non-randomised comparative intervention studies that included centre-based PR in patients ≥18 years with lung cancer who were receiving RT. PR was defined as any type of exercise, respiratory training, or both and/or at least one additional component (eg, psychological support). Studies were excluded if they were not available in English, were not full-text articles or were non-peer-reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion and extracted data. PR components and the typology of outcome assessments used were mapped at the final data synthesis level.
resultsOut of 3120 records, nine studies were investigated in the final data synthesis. In these studies, in addition to exercise or respiratory training, psychological support and disease education were the most common components of PR. Pulmonary function, quality of life, symptom assessment and exercise performance were commonly assessed outcomes in these included studies. Although the effectiveness of PR is difficult to synthesise, the evidence for improvements in exercise performance and symptoms of dyspnoea and anxiety/depression is promising.
conclusionsEvidence on PR in patients with lung cancer receiving RT is sparse, and there is a heterogeneous understanding of PR. The development of standardised PR protocols and investigation of the capabilities of PR in this growing and under-represented patient population are essential.
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.