ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Current status of pulmonary rehabilitation and impact on prognosis of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in South Korea.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have been limited to improving dyspnea, exercise capacity, and quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to assess the current status of PR and its effect on prognosis. Methods: The Nationwide Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database was used in this study. Annual PR implementation rate since 2016 following its coverage in the health insurance was analyzed. IPF cases were defined using the International Classification of Diseases 10 Results: Of the 4,228 patients with IPF, only 205 (4.85%) received PR. Patients in the PR group were more frequently treated with pirfenidone and systemic steroids than non-PR group. In patients treated with steroids, mortality risk increased regardless of PR application, with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.26-2.10, P<0.001] in the PR group and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.21-1.57, P<0.001) in the non-PR group, compared to those not treated with steroids. Additionally, PR did not significant affect mortality risk in patients not receiving steroids (HR, 1.49, 95% CI: 0.87-2.54, P=0.15). Similar patterns were seen for the risk of AE. Conclusions: PR was applied in only a minority of patients with IPF. It did not succeed in reducing the risk of AE or mortality. A prospective study targeting early-stage patients is needed to evaluate the impact of PR considering the progressive nature of IPF disease itself.
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.