Trial reportBMJ open2024
Pulmonary rehabilitation in Iranian outpatients with mustard gas lung disease: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePeople with mustard gas lung disease experience cough, sputum, breathlessness and exercise limitation. We hypothesised that pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) would be beneficial in this condition.
designAn assessor-blind, two-armed, parallel-design randomised controlled clinical trial.
settingSecondary care clinics in Iran.
participants60 men with breathlessness due to respiratory disease caused by documented mustard gas exposure, mean (SD) age 52.7 (4.36) years, MRC dyspnoea score 3.5 (0.7), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) 72.3 (15.2).
interventionsParticipants were allocated either to a 6-week course of thrice-weekly PR (n=31) or to usual care (n=29), with 6-week data for 28 and 26, respectively. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoint was change in cycle endurance time at 70% baseline exercise capacity at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included 6 min walk distance, quadriceps strength and bulk, body composition and health status. For logistical reasons, blood tests that had been originally planned were not performed and 12-month follow-up was available for only a small proportion.
resultsAt 6 weeks, cycle endurance time increased from 377 (140) s to 787 (343) s with PR vs 495 (171) s to 479 (159) s for usual care, effect size +383 (231) s (p<0.001). PR also improved 6 min walk distance+103.2 m (63.6-142.9) (p<0.001), MRC dyspnoea score -0.36 (-0.65 to -0.07) (p=0.016) and quality of life; SGRQ -8.43 (-13.38 to -3.48) p<0.001, as well as quadriceps strength+9.28 Nm (1.89 to 16.66) p=0.015.
conclusionThese data suggest that PR can improve exercise capacity and quality of life in people with breathlessness due to mustard gas lung disease and support the wider provision of this form of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IRCT2016051127848N1.
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.