ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
The application of collaborative nursing model improve the postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with lung carcinoma: a retrospective study of 345 cases.
Article in Frontiers in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lung carcinoma is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, and while surgical resection remains a primary treatment option, postoperative recovery often presents significant challenges, particularly in terms of pulmonary function and quality of life (QOL). The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Collaborative Nursing Model (CNM) in improving postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation. Methods: This retrospective study included 345 lung carcinoma patients who underwent surgical resection. Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 248), which received postoperative care under the CNM, and a control group (n = 97), which received standard postoperative care. Outcomes assessed included pulmonary function recovery, rehabilitation adherence, QOL, postoperative complications, and psychological wellbeing. Results: The intervention group showed greater improvements in pulmonary function compared with the control group, including FVC (1 +6.0%, 95% CI 3.6-8.4), FEV1 (1 +5.9%, 95% CI 3.4-8.4), and MVV (1 +4.93 L/min, 95% CI 3.4-6.5). Rehabilitation adherence (84.8% vs. 62.3%; RD +22.5%, 95% CI 12.1-32.9%) and dietary adherence (88.3% vs. 70.4%; RD +17.9%, 95% CI 7.8-28.0%) were higher in the intervention group. Greater improvements were also observed in quality of life, with larger reductions in SGRQ scores (1 -7.44, 95% CI -10.2 to -4.7) and increases in SF-36 scores (1 +7.94, 95% CI 5.7-10.2). The incidence of pulmonary infections was lower in the intervention group (8.2% vs. 17.3%; RD -9.1%, 95% CI -17.8 to -0.4), while differences in other complications were not statistically significant. Psychological outcomes were improved, with greater reductions in anxiety and depression scores (both 1 -1.97, 95% CI -3.0 to -1.0). Discussion: The CNM was associated with improved postoperative pulmonary rehabilitation outcomes in lung cancer patients, including better pulmonary function, higher adherence, improved QOL, and a lower incidence of complications and psychological distress.
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.