The Impact of Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Advanced Stage Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy or Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to analyze the efficacy of pulmonary rehabilitation on exercise capacity, lung function, and quality of life (QoL) in advanced lung cancer. Method: This Systematic Review and meta-analysis were conducted based on Randomized Clinical Trials and Prospective articles obtained through searches in PubMed, Google Scholar, Europe PMC, and Cochrane Library. The review focuses on the predetermined topic. The quality of the study was assessed by the Jadad scale for clinical trial studies and Newcastle Ottawa Scale for Cohort. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.4 software. Result: A total of 6 RCT studies with 251 participants were included in this meta‐analysis. Patients with lung cancer who have received chemotherapy and or radiation therapy and undergo pulmonary rehabilitation programs have a significant impact on exercise capacity The Six Minute Walk Test (MD=72.06 [95% CI 25.45, 118.67], p=0.002), Forced Expiratory Volume (MD=13.03 [95% CI 0.18,25.89], p= 0.05), Forced Vital Capacity (MD=12.44 [95% CI 0.58, 24.30], p= 0.04) dan HRQoL Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung Cancer Subscale (MD=1.64 [95% CI 0.07,3.21], p= 0.04). Conclusion: Our study suggests that pulmonary rehabilitation impact exercise capacity (6MWT), improvement in lung function, and quality of life.Keywords: Lung cancer; Pulmonary Rehabilitation; Chemotherapy; Radiotherapy
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| 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".