CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,643Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchCardiovascular and exercise physiologyRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Open access
McCarthy, Bernard, Casey, Dympna, Devane, Declan, Murphy, Kathy, Murphy, Edel, Lacasse, Yves·2015·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003793.pub3PMC PMC10008021
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Widespread application of pulmonary rehabilitation (also known as respiratory rehabilitation) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by demonstrable improvements in function (health-related quality of life, functional and maximal exercise capacity) attributable to the programmes. This review updates the review reported in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of pulmonary rehabilitation versus usual care on health-related quality of life and functional and maximal exercise capacity in persons with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register. Searches were current as of March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD in which health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or functional (FEC) or maximal (MEC) exercise capacity were measured. We defined 'pulmonary rehabilitation' as exercise training for at least four weeks with or without education and/or psychological support. We defined 'usual care' as conventional care in which the control group was not given education or any form of additional intervention. We considered participants in the following situations to be in receipt of usual care: only verbal advice was given without additional education; and medication was altered or optimised to what was considered best practice at the start of the trial for all participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated mean differences (MDs) using a random-effects model. We requested missing data from the authors of the primary study. We used standard methods as recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Along with the 31 RCTs included in the previous version (2006), we included 34 additional RCTs in this update, resulting in a total of 65 RCTs involving 3822 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis.We noted no significant demographic differences at baseline between members of the intervention group and those who received usual care. For the pulmonary rehabilitation group, the mean forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) was 39.2% predicted, and for the usual care group 36.4%; mean age was 62.4 years and 62.5 years, respectively. The gender mix in both groups was around two males for each female. A total of 41 of the pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were hospital based (inpatient or outpatient), 23 were community based (at community centres or in individual homes) and one study had both a hospital component and a community component. Most programmes were of 12 weeks' or eight weeks' duration with an overall range of four weeks to 52 weeks.The nature of the intervention made it impossible for investigators to blind participants or those delivering the programme. In addition, it was unclear from most early studies whether allocation concealment was undertaken; along with the high attrition rates reported by several studies, this impacted the overall risk of bias.We found statistically significant improvement for all included outcomes. In four important domains of quality of life (QoL) (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) scores for dyspnoea, fatigue, emotional function and mastery), the effect was larger than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.5 units (dyspnoea: MD 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.03; N = 1283; studies = 19; moderate-quality evidence; fatigue: MD 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; N = 1291; studies = 19; low-quality evidence; emotional function: MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78; N = 1291; studies = 19; mastery: MD 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95; N = 1212; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Statistically significant improvements were noted in all domains of the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and improvement in total score was better than 4 units (MD -6.89, 95% CI -9.26 to -4.52; N = 1146; studies = 19; low-quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis using the trials at lower risk of bias yielded a similar estimate of the treatment effect (MD -5.15, 95% CI -7.95 to -2.36; N = 572; studies = 7).Both functional exercise and maximal exercise showed statistically significant improvement. Researchers reported an increase in maximal exercise capacity (mean Wmax (W)) in participants allocated to pulmonary rehabilitation compared with usual care (MD 6.77, 95% CI 1.89 to 11.65; N = 779; studies = 16). The common effect size exceeded the MCID (4 watts) proposed by Puhan 2011(b). In relation to functional exercise capacity, the six-minute walk distance mean treatment effect was greater than the threshold of clinical significance (MD 43.93, 95% CI 32.64 to 55.21; participants = 1879; studies = 38).The subgroup analysis, which compared hospital-based programmes versus community-based programmes, provided evidence of a significant difference in treatment effect between subgroups for all domains of the CRQ, with higher mean values, on average, in the hospital-based pul

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003793.pub3

Cites

343 of 343 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

12 of the 355 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McCarthy, B., Casey, D., Devane, D., Murphy, K., Murphy, E., & Lacasse, Y.
Affiliations
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02-24
Volume
2015
Issue
4
Pages
CD003793-CD003793
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd003793.pub3
PMC
PMC10008021
OpenAlex
W1950113648
Cited by
2,643
References
355
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 179 · 2023: 200 · 2022: 197 · 2021: 224 · 2020: 186 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 181 · 2017: 143 · 2016: 137 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 101 · 2012: 80
FWCI
32.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary rehabilitation, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, maximal exercise capacity, functional exercise capacity, usual care, exercise training, patient education, psychological support, FEV1, COPD exacerbations, hospital readmission, mortality, hospital costs, community-based rehabilitation, inpatient rehabilitation, COPD self-management, COPD screening
MeSH terms
Dyspnea, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Exercise Tolerance, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review