Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Effects of individualized pulmonary rehabilitation on respiratory function and exercise endurance in pneumoconiosis patients.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the impact of individualized pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program on respiratory function, exercise endurance and quality of life in pneumoconiosis patients, aiming to provide scientific and effective methods for rehabilitation treatment of pneumoconiosis patients.
methodsA total of 198 pneumoconiosis patients were selected based on the data of pneumoconiosis patients at various pneumoconiosis rehabilitation stations in Longyan City, Fujian Province from August 2022 to August 2023. Patients were randomly divided into control group and rehabilitation group according to the random digits table method. Patients in the two groups were given routine treatment, whereas patients in the rehabilitation group received individualized PR treatment in addition. Pulmonary function indicators (FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC, PEF, MEF75%, MEF50%, MEF25%), six-minute walk distance (6MWD), Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, Borg scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressure (MEP) were used to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the two groups.
resultsCompared with the control group, statistically significant increases in FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEF, MEF75%, MEF50% and MEF25% were detected in the rehabilitation group after treatment (P < 0.05, effect size = 0.93,0.97,1.13,1.24,1.20,1.00,1.21). In the rehabilitation group, there were statistically significant improvements in FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC, PEF, MEF75%, MEF50%, MEF25% following treatment compared to baseline measurements (P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, we observed a significant decreases in CAT, mMRC, Borg scale and HADS scores (P < 0.05, effect size =-1.12,-0.75,-1.30,-0.63,-1.07), and a significant increase in the MNA-SF score in the rehabilitation group after treatment (P < 0.05, effect size = 1.09). Following treatment, the MIP, MEP and 6MWD in the rehabilitation group significantly improved compared with the control group (P < 0.05, effect size = 0.78,0.69,1.22).
conclusionIndividualized PR improved the respiratory function and exercise endurance of pneumoconiosis patients, and improved their quality of life.
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.