Effects of Exercise-Based Interventions on Fall Risk and Balance in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent disease characterized by airflow limitation and is associated with decreased balance and increased fall risk. Since falls are related to increased mortality, interventions targeting balance and fall risk could reduce morbidity and mortality. The objective of this review was to systematically assess the effects of exercise-based interventions on fall risk and balance in patients with COPD. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CINAHL were screened for randomized controlled trails and within-group studies evaluating effects of exercise-based interventions on fall risk or balance in patients with COPD. Data were presented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified, 6 randomized controlled trails and 9 within-group studies. All interventions reported positive effects on balance outcomes. No studies reported fall risk. Taking current recommendations of balance outcome measures in patients with COPD into account, pulmonary rehabilitation combined with balance training had the highest effect size. Nine papers had concerns regarding bias, mostly due to the lack of blinding outcome assessors. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-based interventions have a positive effect on balance in patients with COPD. Pulmonary rehabilitation with balance training seems to have the most beneficial effect on balance. The effects on fall risk, as well as the long-term intervention effects remain unclear. A standardized balance assessment and research on long-term effects and fall risk are recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 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".