Functional status following pulmonary rehabilitation in people with interstitial lung disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD) often experience worsening symptoms and activity avoidance. Limited data exists on outcome measures for assessing functional status (capacity and performance), as well as on the effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in improving these outcomes in ILD. Aim This review aimed to systematically assess the effects of PR on both functional capacity and performance in individuals with ILD. Methods Randomised controlled trials involving pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in adults with ILD, which included at least an exercise training component and education and/or psychosocial support, were included. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed. Mean changes from baseline and standard deviations were retrieved for each group, and a random-effects model was applied. Results Eight studies were included, mostly involving individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis ( n = 5). PR duration ranged from 3 to 26 weeks. Seven studies used the 6MWT to evaluate functional capacity and one also used the 30-s STS. Two studies assessed functional performance, measuring time spent in moderate physical activity with the SenseWear Armband, number of steps per day with the same device, and energy expenditure in MET-min using the international physical activity questionnaire. PR improved functional capacity (6MWT-MD 45.82 m, 95%CI [26.14; 65.50], I 2 = 71.54%, p < .001; 30-s STS- PR: 3.7 ± 2.6 reps; control group: −0.4 ± 2.5 reps, p < .001) compared to usual care. Only self-reported physical activity levels increased after PR (PR: 51.4 ± 57.7MET-min; control group: 20.9 ± 37.2MET-min, p = .03). Conclusion PR is effective at improving functional capacity; however, functional performance is often overlooked, resulting in limited and inconclusive findings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".