Results of Physiotherapy Treatments in Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to review clinical trials of the effectiveness of physiotherapy compared with standard care, focused mainly on the functional status of patients hospitalized for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Methods: Search strategies were developed for each of the databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). The study eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) The objective was to assess the effect and efficacy of physiotherapy compared with standard care (which included only medical and pharmacological treatment); (2) adults subjects had AECOPD; (3) one of the outcome measures was functional status, defined as an individual's ability to perform the normal daily activities required to meet basic needs, fulfill usual roles, and maintain health and well-being; (4) it was a clinical trial; (5) it was written in English; (6) it was published between January 2009 and February 2016; and (7) the full-text article was available. Results: The review revealed that for patients hospitalized for AECOPD, exercise, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, breathing exercises, and chest therapy significantly improved their functional status compared with standard care. Conclusions: A variety of physiotherapy modalities have been shown to improve functional status compared with standard care among patients hospitalized for AECOPD; other outcome measures also showed improvements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".