Safety and Efficacy of Inpatient Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients Hospitalized with an Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) during hospitalization for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) occurs during a period of disease instability for the patient, and the safety and efficacy of PR, specifically during the hospitalization period, have not been established. Objectives The purpose of this review is to determine the safety and efficacy of PR during the hospitalization phase for individuals with AECOPD. Methods Scientific databases were searched up to August 2022 for randomized controlled trials that compared in-hospital PR with usual care. PR programs commenced during the hospitalization and included a minimum of two sessions. Titles and abstracts followed by full-text screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. The intervention effect estimates were calculated through meta-analysis using a random-effect model. Results A total of 27 studies were included (n = 1,317). The meta-analysis showed that inpatient PR improved the 6-minute-walk distance by 105 m (P < 0.001). Inpatient PR improved the performance on the five-repetition sit-to-stand test by −7.02 seconds (P = 0.03). Quality of life (QOL), as measured by the 5-level EuroQoL Group-5 dimension version (EQ-ED-5L) and the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, was significantly improved by the intervention. Inpatient PR increased lower limb muscle strength by 33.35 N (P < 0.001). There was no change in the length of stay. Only one serious adverse event related to the intervention was reported. Conclusions This review suggests that it is safe and effective to provide PR during hospitalization for individuals with AECOPD. In-hospital PR improves functional exercise capacity, QOL, and lower limb strength without prolonging the hospital length of stay.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".