MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

2006· review· en· W4246117717 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecCegep de Sainte Foy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDPulmonary rehabilitationPhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialRehabilitationConfidence intervalMeta-analysisPulmonary function testingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function attributable to the programs. This review updates that reported in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of rehabilitation on health-related quality of life (QoL) and exercise capacity in patients with COPD. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified additional RCTs from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of July 2004. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs of rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which quality of life (QoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. Rehabilitation was defined as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. Control groups received conventional community care without rehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study. MAIN RESULTS: We included the 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the 2001 Cochrane review. Eight additional RCTs (for a total of 31) met the inclusion criteria. We found statistically significant improvements for all the outcomes. In four important domains of QoL (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire scores for Dyspnea, Fatigue, Emotional function and Mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 units (for example: Dyspnoea score: WMD 1.0 units; 95% confidence interval: 0.8 to 1.3 units; n = 12 trials). Statistically significant improvements were noted in two of the three domains of the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire. For FEC and MEC, the effect was small and slightly below the threshold of clinical significance for the six-minute walking distance (WMD: 48 meters; 95% CI: 32 to 65; n = 16 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation relieves dyspnea and fatigue, improves emotional function and enhances patients' sense of control over their condition. These improvements are moderately large and clinically significant. Rehabilitation forms an important component of the management of COPD.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Quick stats

Citations604
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207