ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2023
Effects of Pedometer-Based Step-Feedback on Physical Activity of Severe COPD Patients.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical activity in COPD: a scoping review of methods and behaviour change techniques.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- Influence of basal physical activity and air quality on a walking programme in patients with COPD.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Observational
- Association of Lifestyle Behaviors with Quality of Life in Patients with COPD: A Cross-Sectional Study in Primary Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigated whether adding step-feedback (step-FB) from a pedometer to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs could increase the physical activity (PA) of low-activity patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients and Methods: We included low-activity patients with severe COPD (step-FB group: 14 patients; control group: 17 patients) who underwent PR for the first time. The usual PR program for patients with severe COPD consisted of two 8-week sessions (PR session 1: PR1, PR session 2: PR2). The step-FB group was provided a program with step-FB added to PR2 (PR2+step-FB). Furthermore, all patients were evaluated at pre-intervention (baseline), PR1, and PR2. The primary outcome of this study was the number of daily steps (steps) and energy expenditure from activity (energy expenditure), as measured by a pedometer. The secondary outcomes were dyspnea and exercise tolerance. Results: In PR1, dyspnea, exercise tolerance, steps, and energy expenditure were significantly improved as compared to baseline, in both groups. During PR2, dyspnea and exercise tolerance were significantly improved as compared to PR1, in both groups. Steps and energy expenditure were significantly improved in the step-FB group, but not in the control group. Conclusion: PR improved PA by improving physical function in severe COPD patients. Adding step-FB improved PA in severe COPD patients by presenting an activity goal for improving PA. Therefore, pedometer-based step-FB is a viable addition to PR and has the potential to improve PA continuously in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.