ArticleOpen respiratory archives
Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD Patients: Can a Novel Stepwise, Patient-Centered Approach Improve Survival? A Feasibility Study.
Article in Open respiratory archives. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a fundamental treatment of COPD. Since it remains underutilized, home-based programs and telemedicine may be useful. In this study, the authors wanted to test if a novel home-based, step-guided PR program centered on self-efficacy promotion and telehealth, was feasible and safe. This quasi-experimental feasibility study included 14 patients with COPD, two consecutive pillars (education and exercise training) and three consecutive exercise training steps of progressive intensity, for 12 weeks. There was a significant reduction in the BODE Index (6 ± 3 to 5 ± 3) and in symptoms and quality-of-life questionnaires. Five patients improved the 6-min walk test with clinical and statistical significance (270 ± 124 to 338 ± 97). Three patients improved FEV
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.