scholarly journals Effect of Home-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Functional Capacity in People With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis- A Systematic Review Protocol

Author(s):  
Revati Amin ◽  
K Vaishali ◽  
Arun G Maiya ◽  
Aswini Kumar Mohapatra ◽  
Uday Narayan Yadav ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the common types of interstitial lung disease having high prevalence and mortality worldwide. As a result of patient-centred hindering factors of adherence to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), home-based PR is an alternate mode of rehabilitating individuals with IPF. This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR on functional capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with IPF. MethodsClinically stable, high resolution computed tomography and physician diagnosed IPF participants having modified Medical Research Council score below five will be considered for the systematic review. Studies involving home-based PR as an intervention to treat individuals with IPF will be considered. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised studies (with two groups followed-up) are eligible to be included. Outcomes of our interest are functional capacity (6-minute walk distance, shuttle walk test and incremental shuttle walk test) and secondary outcome measure would include assessment of quality of life and adverse effects of intervention. Electronic databases such as SCOPUS, Medline (PubMed and Web of Science), PEDRo and CINAHL will be searched using database specific terms. Additionally, forward and backward citations of included studies will be searched to identify potential records. Two review authors, independently, will conduct the screening, data extraction using a customised standard tool, and critical appraisal using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool of included studies. If data permits, meta-analysis will be conducted. In case of substantial heterogeneity, we will do a narrative synthesis. Subgroup analysis will be undertaken based on various contextual and interventional factors. DiscussionThis systematic review will guide the physiotherapists and individuals with IPF on the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR that might support and promote participation in PR for better living.Systematic review registrationProtocol has been registered on PROSPERO CRD42020213883.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Revati Amin ◽  
K. Vaishali ◽  
G. Arun Maiya ◽  
Aswini Kumar Mohapatra ◽  
Uday Narayan Yadav ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is one of the common types of interstitial lung disease having high prevalence and mortality worldwide. As a result of patient-centred hindering factors of adherence to centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), home-based PR is an alternate mode of rehabilitating individuals with IPF. This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR on functional capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in individuals with IPF. Methods Clinically stable, high resolution computed tomography and physician diagnosed IPF participants having modified Medical Research Council score below 5 will be considered for the systematic review. Studies involving home-based PR as an intervention to treat individuals with IPF will be considered. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised studies (with two groups followed up) are eligible to be included. Outcomes of our interest are functional capacity (6-min walk distance, shuttle walk test and incremental shuttle walk test) and secondary outcome measure would include assessment of quality of life and adverse effects of intervention. Electronic databases such as SCOPUS, Medline (PubMed and Web of Science), PEDRo and CINAHL will be searched using database specific terms. Additionally, forward and backward citations of included studies will be searched to identify potential records. Two review authors, independently, will conduct the screening, data extraction using a customised standard tool, and critical appraisal using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool of included studies. If data permits, meta-analysis will be conducted. In case of substantial heterogeneity, we will do a narrative synthesis. Subgroup analysis will be undertaken based on various contextual and interventional factors. Discussion This review will provide comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness of unsupervised home-based PR to physiotherapists, policy makers and researchers who are interested in IPF management. Findings from this review may guide the development and evaluation of more robust evidence based home-based PR that aimed to improve functional capacity among people with IPF. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020213883.


2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Fratti Neves ◽  
Manoela Heinrichs dos Reis ◽  
Tonantzin Ribeiro Gonçalves

Abstract: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (OPR) has shown positive results. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of home or community-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HCPR) in individuals with COPD. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials compared HCPR to controls and HCPR to OPR according to functional capacity, dyspnea, and quality of life in individuals with COPD. 3,172 citations were identified in databases, and 23 were included in this review. HCPR proved superior to controls based on functional capacity in the 6-Minute Walk Test and Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, and based on dyspnea and quality of life in the Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. When HCPR and OPR were compared, there were no effect differences in functional capacity or quality of life. Improvement was greater in patients with more bronchial obstruction measured by FEV1. HCPR improves functional capacity and quality of life and decreases the sensation of dyspnea. Its benefits in functional capacity and quality of life are comparable to those obtained with OPR in individuals with COPD.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Hulei Zhao ◽  
Yang Xie ◽  
Jiajia Wang ◽  
Xuanlin Li ◽  
Jiansheng Li

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for pneumoconiosis. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, CNKI, VIP databases and Wanfang Data from their inception to June 1, 2019. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PR for pneumoconiosis was conducted and reported in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed bias risk. All statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan software. Sixteen RCTs with 1307 subjects were ultimately included for analysis. Compared with routine treatment, PR was able to improve the 6-minute walking distance (mean difference (MD) 69.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 61.95–76.25); the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey total score (MD 17.60, 95% CI 13.59–21.61); physical function score (MD 15.45, 95% CI 3.20–27.69); role physical score (MD 17.87, 95% CI 12.06–23.69); body pain score (MD 14.34, 95% CI 10.33–18.36); general health score (MD 20.86, 95% CI 16.87–24.84); vitality score (MD 11.66, 95% CI 0.18–23.13); social function score (MD 9.67, 95% CI 1.27–18.08); mental health score (MD 20.60, 95% CI 13.61–27.59); forced vital capacity (FVC) (MD 0.20, 95% CI 0.12–0.29); forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.09–0.38); FEV1% (MD 5.19, 95% CI 1.48–8.90); maximal voluntary ventilation (MD 4.47, 95% CI 1.14–7.81); reduction in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (MD -9.60, 95% CI -16.40 to -2.80); and the modified Medical Research Council Scale score. Furthermore, PR did not increase the FEV1/FVC (MD 3.61, 95% CI -3.43 to 10.65), nor the emotional score (MD 6.18, 95% CI -23.01 to 35.38) compared with the control. We found no reports of adverse events associated with PR. Thus, to some extent, PR can improve functional capacity and quality of life in patients with pneumoconiosis. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of high heterogeneity. This trial is registered with registration number CRD42018095266.


2009 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 443-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefania Costi ◽  
Mauro Di Bari ◽  
Paolo Pillastrini ◽  
Roberto D'Amico ◽  
Ernesto Crisafulli ◽  
...  

Background, Objectives, and Measurements Patients with chronic airway obstruction (CAO) frequently experience dyspnea and fatigue during activities performed by accessory muscles of ventilation, which competitively participate in arm elevation. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning patients with CAO addresses the effects of upper-extremity exercise training (UEET), added to lower-extremity training or comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation, on the following patient-centered outcomes: exercise capacity, symptoms, ability to perform daily activities, and health-related quality of life. Methods Studies were retrieved using comprehensive database and hand-search strategies. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility based on inclusion criteria. A detailed description of treatments was mandatory. Reviewers rated study quality and extracted information on study methods, design, intervention, and results. Results Forty publications were evaluated. Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria but had serious methodological limitations, which introduce possible biases that reduce their internal validity. The outcomes measured were heterogeneous, and the results were inconsistent regarding maximal exercise capacity, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life. No effect of UEET was demonstrated for measures of arm fatigue. Limitations and Conclusions The limited methodological quality of the studies retrieved prevented us from performing a meta-analysis, the results of which could be misleading. This systematic review shows that there is limited evidence examining UEET and that the evidence available is of poor quality. Therefore, a recommendation for the inclusion or exclusion of UEET in pulmonary rehabilitation programs for individuals with CAO is not possible. Further research is needed to definitively ascertain the effects of this training modality on patient-centered outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 273-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mansueto Gomes-Neto ◽  
Cassio Magalhães Silva ◽  
Diego Ezequiel ◽  
Cristiano Sena Conceição ◽  
Micheli Saquetto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document