SynthesisInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025
Effects on Exercise Tolerance and Functional Outcomes of Eccentric versus Concentric Aerobic Exercise in People with COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07627035 (EFFECTIVENESS OF COMBINED CONCENTRIC AND ECCENTRIC AEROBIC EXERCISE ON A TREADMILL IN PATIENTS WITH COPD), which is not on this 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.
Effectiveness of combined concentric and eccentric aerobic exercise on a treadmill in patients with copd: a randomized clinical trial.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methodological Considerations Regarding Heterogeneity and Statistical Modeling in "Effects on Exercise Tolerance and Functional Outcomes of Eccentric versus Concentric Aerobic Exercise in People with COPD" [Letter].International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 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
Introduction and Objectives: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with peripheral muscle weakness, dyspnoea and decreased exercise tolerance. Eccentric aerobic exercise (ECC), characterised by contractions during muscle stretching, is becoming an alternative to concentric aerobic exercise (CON) in this population, due to its reduced cardiorespiratory demand. The main objective of this systematic review, following the PRISMA criteria, is to determine the benefits of ECC versus CON on exercise tolerance in people with COPD. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar and PEDro databases until March 2025. Only randomised controlled trials published in the last 10 years and with exercise tolerance and functional outcomes analysed were included. Results: Six randomised controlled trials were included (n=154), with good methodological quality (PEDro 6-7) and moderate certainty of evidence. The ECC showed benefits compared to CON in improvement of quadriceps strength (-0.15 [-0.51, 0.22] p=0.43); reduction of dyspnoea (-0.74 [-1.15, -0.34] p <0.001) and lower limb fatigue (-2.29, p < 0.001), a higher work rate (-0.48 [-1.07, 0.12] p =0.12), improvements in Timed Up and Go (TUG) (-2.03 [-2.90, -0.16] p< 0.001) and decrease heart rate (-14.37 [-18.24, -10.50] p < 0.01), suggesting increased cardiorespiratory efficiency. In contrast, the CON showed an improvement in endurance time (1.05 [0.45, 1.64] p<0.01) and oxygen saturation (1.79 [0.62, -2.97] p < 0.01) (IC 95%). Conclusion: ECC is presented as an effective and safe strategy to improve exercise tolerance in people with COPD in terms of saturation, dyspnoea, fatigue and heart rate, while CON improves endurance time. However, further studies are required to confirm its long-term functional benefits and its applicability in other pathologies and also treatment protocols are needed to standardize the use of eccentric exercise.
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.