Aerobic and breathing exercises improve dyspnea, exercise capacity and quality of life in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients: systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease associated with significant dyspnea and limited exercise capacity. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence of exercise interventions during pulmonary rehabilitation that aim to improve exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in IPF patients. METHODS: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, PubMed and PEDro from inception to January 2019 using search terms for: (I) participants: 'IPF or interstitial lung disease'; (II) interventions: 'aerobic training or resistance training or respiratory muscle training'; and (III) outcomes: 'exercise capacity or dyspnea or health-related quality of life'. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts to identify eligible studies. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist and meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 1,677 articles identified, 14 were included (four randomized controlled trials and 10 prospective pre-post design studies) that examined 362 patients receiving training and 95 control subjects. Exercise capacity was measured with the 6-minute walk distance, peak oxygen consumption, peak work rate, or endurance time for constant work rate cycling, which increased after exercise [aerobic exercise; aerobic and breathing exercises; aerobic and inspiratory muscle training (IMT) exercises] compared to the control groups. Dyspnea scores improved after aerobic and breathing exercises. HRQL also improved after aerobic exercise training alone or combined with breathing exercises. Aerobic training alone or combined with IMT or breathing exercises improved exercise capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Breathing exercises appears to complement exercise training towards improved dyspnea and HRQL in patients with IPF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".