MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210946154 · doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.01.007

Unsupervised physical activity interventions for people with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4210946154 on OpenAlexaff
Cátia Paixão, Vânia Rocha, Dina Brooks, Alda Marques

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWest Park Healthcare Centre
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaEuropean Social FundEuropean Regional Development FundPrograma Operacional Regional do Centro
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCOPDMeta-analysisPhysical therapyForest plotAnxietyPulmonary diseaseQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Unsupervised PA interventions might have a role in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effectiveness is largely unknown. Thus, we aimed to identify and synthesise data on the effects of unsupervised PA interventions in people with COPD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Databases were systematically searched in April 2020, with weekly updates until September 2021. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies comparing unsupervised PA with usual care, were included. Primary outcomes were dyspnoea, exercise capacity and physical activity. The effect direction plot was performed to synthesise results. Meta-analysis with forest plots were conducted for the Chronic Respiratory Disease questionnaire - dyspnoea domain (CRQ-D), 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) and incremental shuttle walk distance (ISWD). RESULTS: 63.7±15.8% predicted) were included. All interventions were conducted at home, most with daily sessions, for 8-12 weeks. Walking was the most common component. The effect direction plot showed that unsupervised PA interventions improved emotional function, fatigue, health-related quality of life, muscle strength and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Meta-analysis showed statistical, but not clinical, significant improvements in dyspnoea (CRQ-D, MD=0.12, 95% CI 0.09-0.15) and exercise capacity, measured with 6MWD (MD=13.70, 95% CI 3.58-23.83). Statistical and clinical significant improvements were observed in exercise capacity, measured with ISWD (MD=58.59, 95% CI 5.79-111.39). None to minor adverse events and a high adherence rate were found. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised PA interventions benefits dyspnoea and exercise capacity of people with COPD, are safe and present a high adherence rate. Unsupervised PA interventions should be considered for people with COPD who cannot or do not want to engage in supervised PA interventions or as a maintenance strategy of PA levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.031
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePulmonologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207