ReviewJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026
Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with lung cancer after lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in improving physical and psychological outcomes after lung resection.
methodsA literature search was conducted across five electronic databases, identifying randomized controlled trials evaluating pulmonary rehabilitation in lung cancer patients after lung resection. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Data synthesis was performed using RevMan Web, with results visualized in forest plots.
resultsEighteen studies (n = 1795) were included; only three were rated as having low risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed that pulmonary rehabilitation, including exercise and breathing training, significantly improved lung function, such as the forced vital capacity, physical capacity, 6-min walking distance, and the physical domain of quality of life in post-surgery lung cancer patients compared to controls. Subgroup analysis indicated that interventions lasting 12 weeks or longer were associated with greater improvements. Egger's test suggested no significant publication bias.
conclusionsThe findings demonstrate the positive effects of pulmonary rehabilitation, including exercise and breathing training, on postoperative recovery in lung cancer patients. Significant improvements were observed in lung function, exercise capacity, and quality of life. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our systematic review underscores pulmonary rehabilitation as an effective intervention to improve physical function and quality of life in lung cancer patients following lung resection. It supports broader adoption to enhance postoperative recovery and long-term health in these patients.
trial registrationPROSPERO (reference: CRD42024616958).
Indexed as
Identifiers
41615632What 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.