The effects of high intensity exercise during pulmonary rehabilitation on ventilatory parameters in people with moderate to severe stable COPD: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether people with moderate to severe COPD who are participating in pulmonary rehabilitation and exercising at high intensity demonstrate the changes in ventilatory parameters that are associated with decreased dyspnea. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases up to December 2013 for relevant randomized control trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies. References of identified studies were also screened. STUDY SELECTION: Studies conducted in a pulmonary rehabilitation setting that included education and exercise were included. Symptom-limited, graded exercise testing that measured tidal volume, respiratory rate, minute ventilation, and inspiratory capacity was required. The studies that contained these keywords in the title or the abstract were selected for further evaluation of the text. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. Four studies met these inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias and quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. DATA SYNTHESIS: Participants in three studies trained at high intensity (70%-80% maximum workload), demonstrating statistically significant changes in tidal volume and respiratory rate. One study did not demonstrate positive ventilatory benefits; however, participants may not have met the desired training intensity. Two studies reported improvement in dyspnea at submaximal exercise intensities. One study noted an increased maximum workload with no significant change in dyspnea at peak exercise. CONCLUSION: People with moderate to severe, stable COPD were able to perform high intensity exercise, which was associated with positive changes in ventilatory parameters and dyspnea. A number of factors limit the generalizability of these results to people participating in pulmonary rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".