Trial reportPloS one2026
Feasibility assessment of double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial protocol comparing two oxygen-supplemented pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A pilot study.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) improves exercise tolerance and COPD assessment test score (CAT). Oxygen supplementation during PR facilitates exercise physiological benefits. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a trial comparing two oxygen supplementation methods, with the hypothesis that both would be effective and produce distinct outcomes.
methodsThis double-blind, crossover, randomized controlled trial compared two PR programs-Program A (including PR under FiO₂ 0.3) and Program B (including PR under FiO₂ 0.5)-using high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with COPD and exertional dyspnea (n = 6). Data on the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), CAT, muscle strength, body composition analysis, respiratory function, and joint range of motion were collected. Participants underwent one month of regular PR followed by two months of oxygen-supplemented PR, with data collected again after this period. Statistical significance was set at 0.05 with a power of 0.8, and the required sample size was calculated accordingly.
resultsThe required sample size could not be calculated based on the 6MWD. The improvement in CAT by Program A was greater than that by Program B. The improvements in muscle parameters by Program B were greater than those by Program A. The standardized effect size and the corresponding required sample sizes for the CAT, quadriceps muscle power, lower leg circumference, trunk muscle mass, and leg muscle mass were 0.32/81, 0.66/8, 0.17/114, 0.27/88, and 0.24/56, respectively.
conclusionsGiven the small number of participants, the 6MWD and CAT were not appropriate primary endpoints for comparing the effectiveness of the two oxygen supplementations during PR in patients with COPD. However, the quadriceps muscle power was identified as the most suitable primary endpoint among all the investigated parameters.
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.