Effect of fixed-dose tiotropium/olodaterol combined therapy on exercise-related outcome measures in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/Objectives This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence on the effect of the fixed-dose combination of tiotropium/olodaterol (Tio/Olo 5/5 μg FDC) on exercise-related outcome measures.Methods We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from four databases that investigated the effectiveness of Tio/Olo 5/5 μg FDC on exercise tolerance, breathlessness, lung function, and physical activity from inception to October 2024.Results Findings from eight RCTs indicated that Tio/Olo 5/5 μg FDC was superior to Tio 5 μg or placebo for the following outcomes: exercise tolerance [Tio 5 μg: 3 RCTs, mean difference (MD) = 16.6 m, 95% CI: 5.2–28.1, p < 0.001], exercise endurance time [Placebo: 2 RCTs, SMD = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.19–0.39, p = p < 0.001], inspiratory capacity [Tio 5 μg: 3 RCTs, MD = 0.13 L, 95% CI: 0.07–0.19, p < 0.001], and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) [Tio 5 μg: 4 RCTs, MD = 0.12 L, 95% CI: 0.11–0.14, p < 0.001; Placebo: 2 RCTs, MD = 0.33 L, 95% CI: 0.3–0.35, p < 0.001], with no effect on physical activity levels.Conclusion Tio/Olo 5/5 μg FDC compared to Tio 5 μg or placebo may improve exercise tolerance and lung function, but not physical activity levels in COPD.Protocol registration The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): number CRD42024598553.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".