Optimal duration of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to determine the impact of duration of pulmonary rehabilitation on measures of health-related quality of life and exercise tolerance in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different lengths of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD were identified after searches of six electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] and the Cochrane Library of clinical trials) and reference lists of pertinent articles. Two reviewers performed the searches and assessed trial quality using PEDro and Jadad scales. Five RCTs met inclusion criteria. The mean PEDro score was 6 (range 3-8) and mean Jadad was 2 (range 1-3). Three trials reported a difference in health-related quality of life in favour of the longer duration program; two trials reported a benefit in exercise capacity in favour of longer programs. A meta-analysis of results was not possible due to considerable heterogeneity in program duration and outcomes. Longer duration pulmonary rehabilitation programs appear to have a more favourable effect on health-related quality of life in individuals with COPD; results for exercise capacity are less clear. The limited literature prevents a more definitive conclusion on optimal duration of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".