ArticleMedicine2025
The impact of respiratory specialist nurse-driven pulmonary rehabilitation care on respiratory function in ICU discharged severe pneumonia patients.
Article in Medicine, 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.
- Reducing the complications from community acquired pneumonia: a review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Nurse-led aerobic pulmonary rehabilitation: a comprehensive evaluation of physiological indicators, exercise tolerance, and quality of life in patients with moderate to severe COPD.Frontiers in medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the impact of respiratory specialist nurse-driven pulmonary rehabilitation care on the respiratory function of intensive care unit (ICU)-discharged severe pneumonia patients. This study is a retrospective cohort study, including 62 severe pneumonia patients discharged from the ICU of our hospital between February and December 2024. Propensity score matching was used to match the experimental group (received pulmonary rehabilitation care intervention) and the control group (received routine care), with 31 patients in each group. The study assessed the blood gas indicators, pulmonary function, dyspnea score, and exercise capacity of both groups on Day 1, Day 7, and at discharge. Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for between-group and within-group comparisons, with statistical significance set at P < .05. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. The average age of the intervention group (n = 31) was 66 ± 7 years, with 67.7% male, while the average age of the control group (n = 31) was 65 ± 8 years, with 64.5% male. In the comparison between the intervention group and the control group, the intervention group showed significant improvement in respiratory function on Day 7 and at discharge. The arterial partial pressure of oxygen level in the intervention group (97.0 vs 88.0 mm Hg) and the arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide level (40.0 vs 44.0 mm Hg) were significantly better than those of the control group (P < .05). Furthermore, the forced vital capacity (2.50 vs 2.20 L) and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (1.90 vs 1.65 L) in the intervention group were also significantly higher on Day 7 and at discharge compared to the control group (P < .05). The intervention group also showed significant improvement in the Modified Medical Research Council (Dyspnea Scale) score (2.0 vs 3.0) and the 6-minute walk distance (220 vs 180 m) (P < .05). Respiratory specialist nurse-driven pulmonary rehabilitation care significantly improved the oxygenation, pulmonary function, dyspnea, and exercise capacity of ICU-discharged severe pneumonia patients. This indicates that pulmonary rehabilitation care has a positive impact on the early recovery of severe pneumonia patients and is worth promoting in clinical practice.
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.