Trial reportJAMA network open2025
Minimal vs Specialized Exercise Equipment for Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07575841 (Comparative Efficacy of a Supervised Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program Performed 3 Days/Week Versus 1 Day/Week in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparative Efficacy of a Supervised Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program Performed 3 Days/Week Versus 1 Day/Week in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Web-Based, Pedometer-Mediated Intervention Increases Amount and Intensity of Physical Activity in COPD: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Trial
- Exercise interventions for pulmonary function impairment: rehabilitation strategies from the acute phase to long-term sequelae.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Exercise intensity during a minimal equipment circuit session in adults with chronic respiratory disease.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) improves exercise tolerance, symptom burden, and health-related quality of life for people with chronic respiratory conditions. However, demand for PR outstrips supply. Traditionally, PR has been delivered using specialist, gym-based exercise equipment. Objective: To investigate whether PR using minimal equipment (PR-min) is noninferior to PR using specialist gym exercise equipment (PR-gym). Design, Settings, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, assessor- and statistician-blinded, noninferiority randomized clinical trial compared PR-min with PR-gym. Eligible participants were people with chronic respiratory disease referred for PR to the Regional Pulmonary Rehabilitation Unit in northwest London, UK. Recruitment occurred from October 15, 2018, to December 21, 2021, with a final follow-up to December 14, 2022. Randomization was by an independent web-based system using minimization with 1:1 allocation. Data analysis was performed from May 2023 to January 2025. Interventions: Both PR programs comprised 2 in-person, outpatient supervised sessions per week for 8 weeks. PR-min used minimal equipment (eg, walking circuit and body weight exercises), whereas PR-gym used specialist exercise equipment (eg, treadmills and weights machines). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in incremental shuttle walk (ISW) distance after PR (ie, at 8 weeks; with a predefined noninferiority margin of -24 m). Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, health-related quality of life, costs, and adverse events. Results: A total of 436 participants (median [IQR] age, 71.7 [63.2-77.7] years; 239 [54.8%] male) were enrolled, with 218 randomized to PR-min and 218 to PR-gym. At 8 weeks, PR-min (n = 136) and PR-gym (n = 130) demonstrated significant improvements in ISW distance with no significant between-group difference in ISW distance change (mean, 1.7 m; 1-sided 97.5% CI lower bound, -16.8), which was within the -24-m noninferiority margin. The intention-to-treat analysis and a robust range of sensitivity analyses all demonstrated that PR-min was noninferior to PR-gym. Similar findings were observed for dyspnea and health-related quality of life. No excess adverse events or costs were seen with intervention. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that PR-min demonstrated noninferiority to PR-gym for exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life. PR-min can expand the number of settings where PR can be provided, thus improving patient accessibility. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16196765.
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.