Cited by 44Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Does pulmonary rehabilitation work in clinical practice? A review on selection and dropout in randomized controlled trials on pulmonary rehabilitation

Open access
Bjoernshave·2010·Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

AIM: To analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) to determine whether the patients who complete PR form a representative subset of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) target population and to discuss what impact this may have for the generalizability and implementation of PR in practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A review of 26 RCTs included in a Cochrane Review 2007. We analyzed the selection at three different levels: 1) sampling; 2) inclusion and exclusion; 3) and dropout. RESULTS: Of 26 studies only 3 (12%) described the sampling as the number of patients contacted. In these studies 28% completed PR. In all we found, that 75% of the patients suitable for PR programs were omitted due to sampling exclusion and dropout. Most of the study populations are not representative of the target population. CONCLUSION: The RCTs selected for the Cochrane review gave sparse information about the sampling procedure. The demand for high internal validity in studies on PR reduced their external validity. The patients completing PR programs in RCTs were not drawn from a representative subset of the target population. The ability to draw conclusions relevant to clinical practice from the results of the RCTs on PR is impaired.

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 · 10.2147/clep.s9483

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • If the incomplete post-intervention data are considered to reflect the overall dropout rate for this pilot study, then the range for different outcomes (6MWD, SGRQ score) falls within previously reported estimates for dropout/withdrawal rates of subjects in pulmonary rehabilitation programs (0-54%).

    “If the incomplete post-intervention data are considered to reflect the overall dropout rate for this pilot study, then the range for different outcomes (6MWD, SGRQ score) falls within previously reported estimates for dropout/withdrawal rates of subjects in pulmonary rehabilitation programs (0 -54%).26”

    From Cognitive behavioral therapy for management of dyspnea: A pilot study (2015) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Exacerbations of chronic disease, lack of time, transport issues, motivation, and lack of perceived benefit of pulmonary rehabilitation are well documented as reasons for withdrawal or dropout in studies of pulmonary rehabilitation.

    “Exacerbations of chronic disease, lack of time, transport issues, motivation, and lack of perceived benefit of pulmonary rehabilitation are well documented as reasons for withdrawal or dropout in studies of pulmonary rehabilitation.26,27”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bjoernshave
Affiliations
Regional Hospital Horsens (DK)
Corresponding author
Bjoernshave
Venue
Clinical Epidemiology
Published
2010-04
Volume
2
Pages
73
ISSN
1179-1349 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1992990516
Cited by
44
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
pulmonary rehabilitation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, trial participant selection, participant dropout, sampling bias, generalizability, clinical implementation

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