COPD患者肺康复的结果和措施:一项系统综述

S. Souto-Miranda, Guilherme Rodrigues, M. Spruit, A. Marques
{"title":"COPD患者肺康复的结果和措施:一项系统综述","authors":"S. Souto-Miranda, Guilherme Rodrigues, M. Spruit, A. Marques","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2021.pa1824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The magnitude of response to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is influenced by the selection of outcomes and measures. Outcome and measure selection depends on various factors which can lead to high heterogeneity of reported outcomes/measures in the literature, hindering bench marking between and within PR centers and an effective evidence synthesis. We aimed to review all outcomes and measures used in clinical trials of PR for patients with COPD. A systematic review was conducted (CRD42017079935) with searches on Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Science Direct and PubMed. Studies reporting on PR of stable patients with COPD and from 2000 onwards were included. Data were extracted into a standardized table. Frequency of reporting for each domain, outcome and measure was synthesized using Microsoft Excel®. 267 studies were included with 43153 patients with COPD. 22 domains, 163 outcomes and 217 measures were found. Several measures were used to assess the same outcome. Exercise capacity (n=218) assessed with the six-minute walk test (n=140), health-related quality of life (n=204) assessed with the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire (n=99), and symptoms (n=158) assessed with the modified medical research council dyspnoea scale (n=56) were mostly reported. The least reported outcomes were comorbidities, adverse events and knowledge. This systematic review reinforced the need of a core outcome set in this field, as high heterogeneity in reported outcomes and measures was found. Future studies should assess the importance of each outcome for PR according to different stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":94171,"journal":{"name":"Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes and measures of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"S. Souto-Miranda, Guilherme Rodrigues, M. Spruit, A. Marques\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.congress-2021.pa1824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The magnitude of response to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is influenced by the selection of outcomes and measures. Outcome and measure selection depends on various factors which can lead to high heterogeneity of reported outcomes/measures in the literature, hindering bench marking between and within PR centers and an effective evidence synthesis. We aimed to review all outcomes and measures used in clinical trials of PR for patients with COPD. A systematic review was conducted (CRD42017079935) with searches on Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Science Direct and PubMed. Studies reporting on PR of stable patients with COPD and from 2000 onwards were included. Data were extracted into a standardized table. Frequency of reporting for each domain, outcome and measure was synthesized using Microsoft Excel®. 267 studies were included with 43153 patients with COPD. 22 domains, 163 outcomes and 217 measures were found. Several measures were used to assess the same outcome. Exercise capacity (n=218) assessed with the six-minute walk test (n=140), health-related quality of life (n=204) assessed with the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire (n=99), and symptoms (n=158) assessed with the modified medical research council dyspnoea scale (n=56) were mostly reported. The least reported outcomes were comorbidities, adverse events and knowledge. This systematic review reinforced the need of a core outcome set in this field, as high heterogeneity in reported outcomes and measures was found. Future studies should assess the importance of each outcome for PR according to different stakeholders.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2021.pa1824\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical therapy in sport : official journal of the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2021.pa1824","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

肺康复(PR)反应的大小受结局和措施选择的影响。结果和措施的选择取决于各种因素,这些因素可能导致文献中报告的结果/措施的高度异质性,阻碍了公关中心之间和内部的基准测试和有效的证据合成。我们的目的是回顾COPD患者PR临床试验中使用的所有结果和措施。检索Scopus、Web of Knowledge、Cochrane Library、EBSCO、Science Direct和PubMed进行系统评价(CRD42017079935)。从2000年开始,报告稳定的COPD患者PR的研究被纳入。数据被提取到一个标准化的表格中。使用Microsoft Excel®对每个领域、结果和测量的报告频率进行综合。267项研究纳入43153例COPD患者。共发现22个领域,163个结果和217个测量方法。使用了几种方法来评估相同的结果。用6分钟步行测试评估的运动能力(n=218) (n=140),用圣乔治呼吸问卷评估的健康相关生活质量(n=204) (n=99),以及用改良的医学研究委员会呼吸困难量表评估的症状(n=158) (n=56),均被广泛报道。报道最少的结果是合并症、不良事件和知识。该系统综述强调了该领域核心结果集的必要性,因为报告的结果和测量方法存在高度异质性。未来的研究应根据不同的利益相关者评估每个结果对公共关系的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes and measures of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD: a systematic review
The magnitude of response to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is influenced by the selection of outcomes and measures. Outcome and measure selection depends on various factors which can lead to high heterogeneity of reported outcomes/measures in the literature, hindering bench marking between and within PR centers and an effective evidence synthesis. We aimed to review all outcomes and measures used in clinical trials of PR for patients with COPD. A systematic review was conducted (CRD42017079935) with searches on Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Science Direct and PubMed. Studies reporting on PR of stable patients with COPD and from 2000 onwards were included. Data were extracted into a standardized table. Frequency of reporting for each domain, outcome and measure was synthesized using Microsoft Excel®. 267 studies were included with 43153 patients with COPD. 22 domains, 163 outcomes and 217 measures were found. Several measures were used to assess the same outcome. Exercise capacity (n=218) assessed with the six-minute walk test (n=140), health-related quality of life (n=204) assessed with the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire (n=99), and symptoms (n=158) assessed with the modified medical research council dyspnoea scale (n=56) were mostly reported. The least reported outcomes were comorbidities, adverse events and knowledge. This systematic review reinforced the need of a core outcome set in this field, as high heterogeneity in reported outcomes and measures was found. Future studies should assess the importance of each outcome for PR according to different stakeholders.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信