Arm Exercise Training in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief PURPOSE Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often report intolerable dyspnea when they use their arms for simple activities of daily living. Although arm exercise training is recommended in the guidelines for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), there is limited information regarding its impact. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of studies that have investigated the effects of an arm training program (ATP) on symptoms, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. METHODS A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and the Cochrane Library of clinical trials) was complemented by screening the reference lists of pertinent articles to identify appropriate studies. We accepted randomized controlled trials that were written in English, performed in human subjects with COPD, and investigated the effects of an ATP in patients with COPD. Included studies were reviewed by 2 independent investigators who assigned a score out of 10, using the PEDro scale for assessment of study quality. RESULTS Of 98 reports, 5 met the study criteria. The mean PEDro score was 6.2 (SD = 1.3). The results of the studies indicate that ATP improves arm exercise capacity, but its effect on dyspnea, arm fatigue, and health-related quality of life is unclear. CONCLUSIONS There is evidence to support the use of ATP to improve arm exercise capacity. Larger trials with standardized training methodology and outcomes are required to better understand the optimal training regimen for patients with COPD. A systematic review was conducted to investigate the effects of an arm training program (ATP) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Results of the studies indicate that the ATP improves arm exercise capacity, but its effect on dyspnea, arm fatigue, and health-related quality of life is unclear.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".