SynthesisNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of different home-based pulmonary rehabilitation models in patients with COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of four home-based pulmonary rehabilitation models-traditional home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, telerehabilitation, hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation, and self-management pulmonary rehabilitation-in patients with COPD. We sought to generate comparative evidence against usual care and center-based pulmonary rehabilitation to guide model selection in clinical practice. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to May 1, 2025 for randomized controlled trials involving adults with COPD. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 to synthesize direct and indirect evidence across prespecified outcomes: the six-minute walk test (6MWT), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) domains, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and adverse events (AEs). Global and local consistency were assessed and rankings were summarized using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). The risk of bias was evaluated with RoB 2.0 tool, and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251038495). A total of 39 RCTs involving 3610 patients were included. For exercise capacity, telerehabilitation, traditional home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, and hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation significantly improved 6MWT compared with usual care, and no statistically significant differences were observed between any home-based model and center-based pulmonary rehabilitation for the 6MWT. For health-related quality of life, telerehabilitation, traditional home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, and hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation significantly reduced SGRQ total scores versus usual care. For health status, telerehabilitation significantly improved CAT scores compared with usual care [MD = -2.49, 95% CI (-4.76, -0.22)]. For dyspnea-related outcomes, self-management pulmonary rehabilitation, hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation and traditional home-based pulmonary rehabilitation improved the mMRC dyspnea scale versus usual care. Telerehabilitation also improved HADS-Anxiety scores versus usual care [MD = -1.40, 95% CI (-2.79, -0.01)] and depression scores versus both self-management pulmonary rehabilitation [MD = -1.31, 95% CI (-2.53, -0.09)] and usual care[MD = -1.34, 95% CI (-2.51, -0.18)]. Ranking probabilities suggested that traditional home-based pulmonary rehabilitation had the lowest likelihood of adverse events among home-based models. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation models yield clinically meaningful improvements in COPD and may provide exercise-capacity benefits comparable to center-based pulmonary rehabilitation. As effects and rankings vary across outcomes, no single model is optimal for all patients. Model selection should consider patient needs, digital access, and available resources.
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.