↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD with mild symptoms: a systematic review with meta-analyses
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s78607
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette Rugbjerg, Ulrik Winning Iepsen, Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, Peter Lange

Abstract

Most guidelines recommend pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) levels ≥2, but the effectiveness of PR in patients with less advanced disease is not well established. Our aim was to investigate the effects of PR in patients with COPD and mMRC ≤1. The methodology was developed as a part of evidence-based guideline development and is in accordance with the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through a systematic, multidatabase literature search and selected RCTs comparing the effects of PR with usual care in patients with COPD and mMRC ≤1. Predefined critical outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), adverse effects and mortality, while walking distance, maximal exercise capacity, muscle strength, and dropouts were important outcomes. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and graded the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed when deemed feasible. Four RCTs (489 participants) were included. On the basis of moderate-quality evidence, we found a clinically and statistically significant improvement in short-term HRQoL of 4.2 units (95% confidence interval [CI]: [-4.51 to -3.89]) on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, but not at the longest follow-up. We also found a statistically significant improvement of 25.71 m (95% CI: [15.76-35.65]) in the 6-minute walk test with PR; however, this improvement was not considered clinically relevant. No difference was found for mortality, and insufficient data prohibited meta-analysis for muscle strength and maximal exercise capacity. No adverse effects were reported. We found a moderate quality of evidence suggesting a small, significant improvement in short-term HRQoL and a clinically nonsignificant improvement in walking distance following PR in patients with COPD and mild symptoms. This resulted in a weak recommendation of routine PR in these patients using the GRADE approach.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 212 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 18%
Student > Master 37 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Postgraduate 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 39 18%
Unknown 49 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 21%
Sports and Recreations 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 60 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,609,060
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#745
of 1,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,245
of 365,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#43
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.