SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative efficacy of single exercise interventions on pulmonary function and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically compare the effects of various single exercise interventions, including walking, cycling, respiratory muscle training, Taichi, land-based Liuzijue, water-based Liuzijue, Wuqinxi, Baduanjin, Yijinjing, and Yoga, on pulmonary function and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and to provide evidence for individualized rehabilitation strategies. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on single exercise interventions in patients with COPD were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CNKI from database inception to January 12, 2026. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in RevMan 5.4, and the quality of evidence was further evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The network meta-analysis was performed using the "network" command in STATA 17.0. Results: A total of 77 RCTs involving 5,831 participants were included. The network meta-analysis showed that water-based Liuzijue was the most effective intervention for improving forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV Conclusion: Among single exercise interventions for patients with COPD, water-based Liuzijue showed the greatest benefit in improving pulmonary function, while Yijinjing demonstrated the most pronounced effect on quality of life. However, given the limited number of studies on water-based Liuzijue and Yijinjing, these results should be interpreted with caution, and further high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261280662, CRD420261280662.
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.