Evidence mapPaperPMID 38599676Full record

SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2024

Changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep following pulmonary rehabilitation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

James Manifield, Yousuf Chaudhry, Sally J Singh, Thomas J C Ward, Maxine E Whelan, Mark W Orme

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James ManifieldDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK jm937@leicester.ac.uk.
Yousuf ChaudhryDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sally J SinghDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9834-0366
Thomas J C WardDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2748-4063
Maxine E WhelanCentre for Healthcare and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9203-3162
Mark W OrmeDepartment of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
University of Leicester · GBCoventry University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe variety of innovations to traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR), including different modes of delivery and adjuncts, are likely to lead to differential responses in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.

objectivesTo examine the relative effectiveness of different pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions on physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep.

methodsRandomised trials in chronic respiratory disease involving pulmonary rehabilitation-based interventions were systematically searched for. Network meta-analyses compared interventions for changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD.

results46 studies were included, and analyses were performed on most common outcomes: steps per day (k=24), time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; k=12) and sedentary time (k=8). There were insufficient data on sleep outcomes (k=3). CBPR resulted in greater steps per day and MVPA and reduced sedentary time compared to usual care. CBPR+physical activity promotion resulted in greater increases in steps per day compared to both usual care and CBPR, with greater increases in MVPA and reductions in sedentary time compared to usual care, but not CBPR. Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in steps per day and decreases in sedentary time compared to usual care. Compared to usual care, CBPR+physical activity promotion was the only intervention where the lower 95% confidence interval for steps per day surpassed the minimal important difference. No pulmonary rehabilitation-related intervention resulted in greater increases in MVPA or reductions in sedentary time compared to CBPR.

conclusionThe addition of physical activity promotion to pulmonary rehabilitation improves volume of physical activity, but not intensity, compared to CBPR. High risk of bias and low certainty of evidence suggests that these results should be viewed with caution.

Indexed as

ExerciseLungSedentary BehaviorSleepAgedExercise TherapyFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionSleep QualityTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID38599676
PMCPMC11004771
OpenAlexW4394680290

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.