Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39706685›Full record

Trial reportThorax2025

Smartphone application-based pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Rainer Gloeckl, Marc Spielmanns, Asta Stankeviciene, Anne Plidschun, Daniela Kroll, Inga Jarosch, Tessa Schneeberger, Bernhard Ulm, Claus F Vogelmeier, Andreas Rembert Koczulla

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Thorax, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

10 authors.

Rainer GloecklInstitute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schön Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schönau am Königssee, Germany rainer.gloeckl@gmx.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2741-2748
Marc SpielmannsPulmonary Medicine, Zürcher Reha-Zentren, Wald, Switzerland.
Asta StankevicieneKaia Health Software GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Anne PlidschunKaia Health Software GmbH, Munich, Germany.
Daniela KrollInstitute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schön Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schönau am Königssee, Germany.
Inga JaroschInstitute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schön Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schönau am Königssee, Germany.
Tessa SchneebergerInstitute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schön Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schönau am Königssee, Germany.
Bernhard UlmUnabhängige Statistische Beratung Bernhard Ulm, Munich, Germany.
Claus F VogelmeierDepartment of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany.
Andreas Rembert KoczullaInstitute for Pulmonary Rehabilitation Research, Schön Klinik Berchtesgadener Land, Schönau am Königssee, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an essential element of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. However, access to conventional face-to-face PR programmes is limited.

methodsThis multicentre, randomised controlled trial recruited patients with COPD from 18 sites in Germany and Switzerland, aiming to evaluate the impact of 12 weeks of a mobile app (intervention group; IVG) on quality of life, measured by COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and exercise capacity, assessed by 1-minute-sit-to-stand-test (1MSTST), compared with a control group (CTG) receiving 'enhanced standard-of-care'.

results278 patients were included in the study with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-70) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s 48% predicted (IQR 37-60). In the intention-to-treat analysis at week 12, CAT improved from baseline by median -4 points versus -3 points in the IVG versus CTG groups, respectively (difference: 0 points (95% CI: -1, 2); p=0.7); 1MSTST improved by 1 vs 2 repetitions, respectively (difference: 1 repetition (95% CI: 0, 2); p=0.12)). In a subset of the IVG, with patients grouped by application adherence (≥3 days/week for≥75% of the weeks), adherent users (40.4%) improved 1MSTST versus non-adherent users by median 2 repetitions (95% CI: 1, 3]; p=0.006. Application use did not raise any safety concerns.

conclusionsApplication-based PR improved outcomes in COPD compared with baseline, and adherent users improved exercise capacity more compared with non-adherent users. Although not statistically significant compared with enhanced standard-of-care, this study may support the use of this application for COPD management and addresses the healthcare challenge of access to PR interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS 00024390.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSmartphoneAgedExercise ToleranceFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseEmphysemaExercisePulmonary Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39706685
PMCPMC12015043

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.