Effectiveness of non-pharmacological COPD management on health-related quality of life - a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of mortality worldwide. The chronic progressive disease is accompanied by a high loss of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The available drugs usually only have symptomatic effects; therefore, non-pharmacological therapies are essential too.Areas covered This systematic review examines non-pharmacological interventions consisting of pulmonary rehabilitation, physical activity, and training versus usual care or no intervention in COPD using at least one of the following HRQoL measuring instruments: St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, Clinical COPD Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and EuroQol-5D. Of 1532 identified records from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, 15 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Pulmonary rehabilitation programs were investigated in nine studies, education and counseling-based training programs in three studies, and breathing exercises in three studies. Ten studies were found that investigated non-pharmacological treatment programs that led to a significant and clinically relevant improvement in HRQoL compared with usual care or no treatment.Expert opinion Non-pharmacological interventions consisting of pulmonary rehabilitation, education and counseling-based training programs, and breathing exercises can improve the HRQoL of COPD patients.
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 | 0.021 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".