SynthesisBMC medicine2026
The timing of the commencement of pulmonary rehabilitation in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective intervention for patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) following hospitalization. However, the optimal timing for initiating PR after admission remains controversial. This study conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the therapeutic effects of initiating PR at different time points, with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decision-making and guideline development.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PR following AECOPD were systematically searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome was hospital readmissions. Prespecified secondary outcomes were: exercise capacity (six-minute walk test, 6MWT), lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second, percent predicted, FEV₁%), health-related quality of life (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ), Dyspnoea (modified Medical Research Council scale, mMRC; modified Borg scale, mBorg), mortality, and adverse events. Data analysis was conducted using R software and Stata. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the TESTEX tool and the Cochrane ROB 2 tool. This study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024550770).
resultsA total of 26 studies involving 1,800 patients evaluated four PR initiation time points. Network meta-analysis showed that PR initiated within 2 weeks after discharge was statistically effective in reducing hospital readmissions, alleviating mMRC, and improving SGRQ compared with usual care, and it ranked highest for these outcomes. In contrast, initiating PR after 48 h of hospital admission was statistically effective in improving 6MWT and ranked highest for this outcome. No statistically significant differences were observed across initiation timings for mortality, predicted FEV₁%, or dyspnoea mBorg scale.
conclusionsInitiating PR within two weeks post-discharge is most effective for reducing readmissions, alleviating dyspnoea, and enhancing quality of life, whereas initiating after 48 h of admission provides greater benefits for improving exercise capacity. These findings support a pragmatic rehabilitation pathway combining early in-hospital and structured post-discharge PR. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm optimal timing strategies.
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.