Cochrane · systematic review · CD003793

Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

McCarthy, B, Casey, D, Devane, D, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2015 · Cochrane Library

AirwaysAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 20%Low 1 · 20%Moderate 3 · 60%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Rehabilitation versus usual care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Population: patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
5 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
QoL ‐ Change in CRQ (dyspnoea) CRQ Questionnaire. Scale from 1 to 7 (Higher is better and 0.5 unit is an important difference)
Rehabilitation vs usual care
no estimate extracted19 studies · 1283 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
QoL ‐ Change in SGRQ (total) Scale from 0 to 100 (Lower is better and 4 units is an important difference)
Rehabilitation vs usual care
no estimate extracted19 studies · 1146 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Change in maximal exercise (Incremental Shuttle walk test (ISWT)) Distance metres
Rehabilitation vs usual care
no estimate extracted8 studies · 694 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Change in functional exercise capacity (6MWT)) Distance metres
Rehabilitation vs usual care
no estimate extracted38 studies · 1879 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency
Change in maximal exercise capacity (cycle ergometer) Workmax (watt)
Rehabilitation vs usual care
no estimate extracted16 studies · 779 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency