Clinical and Physiological Effects of Rollators in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effects of using a rollator in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Studies were systematically identified from literature searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases and the reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled or crossover studies examining the effects of rollator usage compared with no aid in individuals with COPD. Methodologic quality was assessed by 2 reviewers independently using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Two reviewers also used a customized form to extract characteristics of and outcomes for subjects related to exercise capacity, symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), physiological, and gait parameters. Weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CI were calculated using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies (126 participants) were included. Use of a rollator during a 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) improved distance walked (WMD = 13 m; 95% CI, 5-22) and lowered end-6MWT dyspnea rating (WMD = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.63-1.32). Longer-term use did not appear to impact exercise capacity or HRQOL, although this may be related to the frequency of use. CONCLUSIONS: When used in the short-term, rollators resulted in a small increase in 6MWT and a reduction in dyspnea. Details on patient adherence are required to accurately evaluate the longer-term effects of rollator usage.
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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".