Systematic review (protocol) of clinical effectiveness and models of care of low-resource pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than half of the people with chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The increasing disability, reduced productivity, associated anxiety and depression from CRDs result in social isolation and economic hardship for patients and their families. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a guideline-recommended multidisciplinary and multifaceted intervention that improves the physical and psychological condition of people with CRD. However, PR services are underprovided and uptake is poor in LMICs, especially in low-resourced setting. We aim to systematically assess the effectiveness, applicable components and mode of delivery of PR. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CABI, AMED and CENTRAL from January 1990 using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRD (including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-tuberculosis, remodelled asthma); Intervention: PR; Comparator: usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and Health-Related Quality-of-Life; Setting: low-resource settings). Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts and full texts for eligibility and extract data from included papers. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, rating the quality of evidence using GRADE. We will use narrative synthesis to answer our three objectives: What is the effectiveness of PR in low-resource settings? What components are used in effective studies? What models of service delivery are used? This systematic review will inform the potential impact and practical models of low-resource PR for the betterment of patients with CRDs to improve their substantial health-care burden and address poor quality of life.
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 | 0.072 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.003 |
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".