SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease;
  • exercise;
  • research design;
  • systematic review

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

While recommendations for the duration, frequency, mode and intensity of exercise programmes for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are specified in consensus statements, criteria for exercise session attendance are less clear. The review questions were: (i) how commonly are a priori criteria and attendance rates reported for people with COPD participating in exercise programmes and (ii) what is the strength of association between attendance and improvements in functional exercise capacity. Database searches identified primary studies of people with COPD participating in exercise or pulmonary rehabilitation programmes of at least 2 weeks duration. Primary outcomes were a priori criteria for attendance, reports of attendance at supervised exercise sessions and mean improvements in functional exercise assessments. Data extraction processes were confirmed prospectively (>80% agreement). Variants of exercise attendance data were described. Linear associations between attendance and improvements in exercise outcomes were explored (Pearson r, P < 0.05). Of the 234 included studies, 86 (37%) reported attendance and 29 (12%) provided a priori criteria for attendance. In the small sample of studies which reported attendance and functional exercise data before and after the intervention, there was little to no relationship between improvements in functional exercise capacity and training volume (prescribed r = −0.03, P = 0.88; attended r = −0.24, P = 0.18). Reporting of exercise programme attendance rates is low and of variable quality for people with COPD. Consistent and explicit reporting of exercise attendance in people with COPD will enable calculation of dose–response relationships and determine the value of a priori exercise attendance criteria.


Abbreviations
COPD

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

ITT

intention-to-treat

PP

per-protocol

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Multiple controlled trials have shown positive effects of pulmonary rehabilitation or exercise training for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).[1, 2] While there remains no consensus on the optimal duration and frequency of pulmonary exercise programmes,[3-6] exercise training is typically prescribed three to five times per week for at least eight successive weeks.[7] Current pulmonary rehabilitation guidelines do not request attendance data to be reported, nor state a minimum required attendance rate for successful completion of pulmonary rehabilitation.[7] In principle, non-attendance could impact upon training load (exercise dose) and consequent improvements in functional exercise outcomes.

From a clinician's view point, information concerning the number of people attending supervised exercise sessions is useful to plan recruitment processes and resources (space, equipment and staff) and interpret whether improvements in exercise outcomes reflect all (intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis) or only people with a certain attendance level (per-protocol (PP) analysis). If intervention studies report training prescription, exercise session attendance rates and improvements in functional exercise outcomes, it should be possible to calculate dose–response characteristics and identify whether an optimal criterion level for exercise session attendance exists.

This systematic review aimed to determine: (i) how commonly a priori criteria and attendance rates are reported for people with COPD participating in exercise training programmes; and (ii) the strength of association between exercise session attendance (vs exercise prescription) and improvements in functional exercise capacity.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

A systematic search of CINAHL (1981–6 October 2011), Medline (1948–6 October 2011), Embase (1974–6 October 2011) and CENTRAL (Cochrane) was undertaken (Table S1 in the supplementary information available online presents search terms and citation yield). Citations were included if: (i) the original study was published in English and included people with COPD; (ii) pulmonary rehabilitation was the primary intervention (with or without adjunctive strategies), was at least 2 weeks in duration, irrespective of the intervention site (e.g. hospital, community, home) and included exercise training as a key component; and (iii) the study design was prospective experimental or observational (controlled and uncontrolled clinical trials, cohort studies). Studies concerning maintenance following pulmonary rehabilitation, associations between physiological and behavioural responses in people with COPD and cost/benefit analysis of rehabilitation were excluded, as were abstracts, study protocols, commentaries and narrative approaches (reviews, editorials, letters).

An a priori strategy including both the search and inclusion/exclusion criteria was developed and piloted by the research team. Studies were included if any statement concerning attendance or participation in exercise training sessions was reported. In the absence of an a priori or specific statement concerning attendance of exercise sessions, studies that reported only the number of participants included in analysis were excluded. Reporting of attendance at exercise sessions could be numeric (number of exercise sessions attended or required to ‘complete’ training or number of people excluded as a result of not attending the exercise intervention) or text (e.g. ‘all participants attended the exercise sessions prescribed’). Where participants were excluded from either the study or analysis for ‘poor compliance’, only studies where the poor compliance was reported to relate to the exercise training sessions were retained.

Consistency of data extraction was confirmed for all authors (n = 12) with 10 randomly selected articles retained from the search (≥80% agreement required for acceptable consistency). Full versions of all retained citations were accessed and uploaded to an internet-based reference management system (RefWorks Version 2.0; RefWorks-COS, Bethseda, MD, USA). Reference lists from included articles were reviewed to further identify eligible articles. For data extraction, authors worked in pairs, with each member extracting data independently and conferring to reach consensus for each data item. When consensus could not be reached, a third independent reviewer was consulted.

Traditionally, systematic reviews of intervention efficacy, diagnosis or prognosis include appraisal of methodological bias. The first aim of this systematic review was to audit whether, and how, authors reported a priori criteria for, and attendance at, supervised exercise sessions in people with COPD. Appraisal of methodological bias was undertaken only for studies providing sufficient data to explore the second aim of this review which was to assess the strength of association between exercise session attendance and improvements in functional exercise capacity. Scores from the publically available Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro scale for randomised controlled trials (PEDro http://www.pedro.org.au/) were retrieved. Studies not currently available within PEDro were independently assessed by two members of the research team using the PEDro scale with consensus reached by discussion.

Data analysis

The percentage of included studies reporting attendance rates and/or an a priori criterion for attendance at exercise sessions was calculated. Publications were grouped according to whether metrics for attendance could be extracted: group 1—descriptive statement but no metric available; group 2—percentage, mean/median available; and group 3—all central tendency metrics available (mean (standard deviation), mean standard error and/or median (interquartile range)). For studies with multiple active intervention groups, the category was based on their ‘best’ reporting of attendance.

Where reported by authors, data concerning the analysis approach (ITT, PP or both) were extracted. In studies which reported a priori criteria for attendance at exercise sessions but did not state a specific analysis approach, the results section was reviewed to determine if analyses included all recruited participants (ITT) or only those meeting a priori criteria (PP).

The strength of linear association between mean percentage attendance at supervised exercise sessions (at least a mean or median available (groups 2 and 3)) and prescribed exercise frequency per week or weeks of programme duration were analysed descriptively (Pearson's correlations coefficient (r) where values from 0 to 0.25 represent little or no relationship, 0.26 to 0.50 fair, 0.51 to 0.75 moderate to good and >0.75 good to excellent linear relationship[8]). In studies which reported mean percent attendance at supervised exercise sessions and functional field exercise outcomes (6 min walk test or 12 min walk test (minute walk test with improvement in 12 min walk test divided by 50%[9])) or incremental shuttle walk test, data for mean pre to post training differences were extracted and converted to percent increase in metres from baseline. The maximum number of prescribed supervised exercise sessions possible in each study was used as an indicator of training volume, where prescribed training volume = prescribed frequency per week (days) × the programme duration (weeks); and actual training volume = reported mean attendance at supervised exercise sessions per week (days) × the programme duration (weeks).

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

The outcome of the search strategy is presented in Figure 1. Of the 234 articles reporting an exercise training/pulmonary rehabilitation programme for people with COPD, 86 (37%) reported attendance of participants in exercise training sessions (summary of included studies in Table S2 in the supplementary information available online). The number of studies reporting attendance increased over time (Fig. 2). Only 29 studies (12%) reported a priori criteria for attendance (Table 1a), which represented 34% of the studies reporting attendance.

figure

Figure 1. Flow diagram of results of the systematic search.

Download figure to PowerPoint

figure

Figure 2. Publication pattern for studies of exercise training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including studies that reported attendance. ○, studies of pulmonary rehabilitation / exercise training in COPD; ●, studies reporting attendance at exercise sessions.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1a. Studies including a priori criteria for exercise attendance (ordered by percentage of the intervention population meeting the a priori criterion for attendance)
Group codeStudyProgramme duration (week) : frequency (week) : maximum number of exercise sessionsCriterion for session attendance n (%)Reference provided for criterionParticipants meeting criterion/participants recruited to active groups (%)ITT or PP reported or inferred
  1. a

    Minimum of 20 sessions should be given at least three times a week to achieve physiologic benefit; twice weekly supervised plus one unsupervised home session may also be acceptable'.[7]

  2. b

    ‘…long term follow-up excluded participants who or had attended less than 75% of the scheduled classes (reflecting the impact of medical problems or a lack of commitment to exercise) were excluded.’[38]

  3. NS: not stated or calculable.

  4. R Analysis approach reported a priori.

  5. I Analysis approach inferred from results.

3[10]12:2:2424 (100) 13/18 (72%)PPI
3[11]10:2:1616 (100) 20/27 (74%)PPI
1[12]9:3:2121 (100) 307/316 (97%)PPI
3[13]8:3:2424 (100) 29/38 (76%)PPI
3[14]8:3:2424 (100) 24/32 (75%)PPI
3[15]8:3:2424 (100) 41/48 (85%)PPI
3[16]8:2:1616 (100) 40/54 (75%)PPI
3[17]8:1–2:1212 (100) 57/57 (100%)PPI
3[18]6:3:1818 (100) 25/28 (89%)PPI
3[19]6:1 to 2:6 or 126 or 12 (100) 66/91 (73%)PPR
3[4]NS:3:2020 (100) 25/25 (100%)PPR
2[20]4:2:87 (88) 22/23 (96%)PPI
1[21]7:2:1412 (86) 44/55 (86%)ITTR
1[22]12:3:3625.25 (85) 35/47 (74%)PPI
1[23]6:2:1210 (83) 49/54 (91%)ITTR
1[24]8:3:1420 (83)Yesa22/30 (73.3%)ITTR
1[25]52:5:260208 (80) 23/27 (86%)PPI
3[26]16:2:3224 (75) 60/100 (60%)PPI
1[27]8:2:1612 (75)Yesb19/47(40%)ITTR and PPR
1[28]8:2:1612 (75) 42/63 (67%)PPI
3[29]4:5:2015 (75) 98/104 (92%)PPR
3[30]8:2:1612 (75) 40/45 (89%)PPI
2[31]8:2:1612 (75) 20/30 (67%)ITTR and PPR
1[32]8:3:2415 (62) 240/252 (95%)ITTR and PPR
2[33]6:2:15>7.5 (50) 21/43 (49%)PPI
1[34]8:2:168 (50) 23/30 (77%)ITTR
2[35]12:3:3618 (50) 24/30 (80%)ITTR and PPR
1[36]8:2:168 (50) 55/63 (87%)PPI
1[37]8:1–2 per day: group 1 = 55 group 2 = 28‘6 weeks of uninterrupted training’ 28/45 (62%)PPI

The majority of studies providing a priori criteria for exercise session attendance used this as a definition for completion of training/pulmonary rehabilitation[4, 10-19, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37] or adherence.[20, 22, 23, 27, 32, 33, 35] Three studies did not provide a specific purpose for the a priori criteria[18, 24, 29] (Table 1a). While not reported as a priori criteria, five studies reported retrospective attendance as an indicator of the degree of adherence[39-43] (Table 1b). Attendance at exercise sessions was reported in a variety of ways, with 45% (n = 38) of studies reporting or providing sufficient data to calculate measures of central tendency and variability (Table 2).

Table 1b. Studies including retrospective criterion for exercise attendance
Group codeStudyProgramme duration (week) : frequency (week) : maximum number of exercise sessionsCriterion for session attendance n (%)Reference provided for criterionParticipants meeting criterion/participants recruited to active group/s (%)ITT or PP reported or inferred
  1. R Analysis approach reported a priori.

  2. I Analysis approach inferred from results.

1[39]4:5:2085% 37/40 (93%)PPI
1[40]6:2:1283% ns/44 (ns)PPR
1[41]48:3:11870% 51/77 (66%)ITTR and PPR
1[42]9:3:2567% 89/99 (90%)ITTR
2[43]52:2-1:2763% 20/26 (77%)ITTR and PPR
Table 2. Reporting styles for attendance at exercise sessions (further detail available in Table S2 in the supplementary information available online)
Reporting style for attendance at exercise sessionsPercentage attendance not calculable (group 1)Percentage reported or calculable (group 2)Percentage reported as mean SD, median IQR (group 3)
n = 26n = 22n = 38
  1. a

    Mean number of rehab sessions 18 ± 4 over a mean duration of 63 ± 27 days.

  2. IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation.

Generic statements2  
Categorical data for attendance1  
Proxy data1  
Number failing to adhere to exercise training (without reporting percentage of exercise training sessions attended for those that were retained in study)9  
Number excluded due to poor adherence1  
Number/percentage of participants meeting a priori criteria7  
Number/percentage meeting retrospective adherence criterion5  
Number/percentage of sessions attended 12 
Number/percentage and range of sessions attended 432
Median percentage ± range of sessions attended 41
Percentage of sessions attended reported as mean across active groups 11
Incomplete attendance of sessions reported across all groups 13
Other  1a

Associations between attendance rates, prescribed exercise volume and improvements in exercise outcomes

Of the 36 studies where mean percentage attendance could be extracted (group 2—percentage, mean/median available[20, 31, 33, 36, 44-52] and group 3—all central tendency metrics available[29, 30, 53-71]), there were 54 individual intervention groups which included supervised exercise. Attendance rates ranged from 48% to 100% (mean ± standard deviation of 89 ± 14%). There was fair association between mean percentage attendance and prescribed frequency of exercise per week, with higher attendance rates for programmes with more frequently prescribed exercise sessions (r = 0.26, P = 0.06). Programmes of longer duration had significantly lower attendance rates (r = −0.42, P = 0.002), although the percentage of variance in attendance explained by programme duration was low (r2 < 20%).

Twenty studies (23%) involving 33 active intervention groups reported both prescribed and attended supervised sessions (training volume; frequency of supervised exercise per week × programme duration) and data which enabled improvement in exercise outcomes to be calculated as a percentage change from baseline (rather than metres).[11, 13-15, 20, 28-30, 36, 44, 45, 53, 54, 57, 59, 65, 66, 68, 69, 72] Seventeen studies used the 6 min walk test, one study used the 12 min walk test[26] and two studies used the incremental shuttle walk test.[36, 65] Risk of methodological bias was moderate across studies (median score 6/10, range 2–8, where scores approaching 10 indicate low risk of methodological bias) (Supplementary Information Table S3).

On average, the difference between the prescribed maximum number of supervised exercise sessions and the mean number of exercise sessions attended was 3 (± 5) (range +6 to −19; prescribed training volume = 25 ± 8 vs attended training volume = 22 ± 6). This equates to a mean of 7% of prescribed exercise sessions not being attended. There was little to no relationship (r = 0–0.25) between improvements in functional exercise capacity and training volume (prescribed r = −0.03, P = 0.88 or attended r = −0.24, P = 0.18 Fig. 3). Improvements in exercise outcomes ranged from a mean increase of 8% (mean number of sessions attended 30% greater than the maximum number of sessions prescribed[29]) to a mean increase of 15% in exercise outcome (mean number of sessions attended 52% lower than the maximum number of session's prescribed[57]).

figure

Figure 3. Relationship between improvements in functional exercise capacity and training volume (prescribed or attended). ●, prescribed; —, r = −0.03, P = 0.88; ○, attended; - - -, r = −0.24, P = 0.18.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

This review clearly demonstrates low levels of reporting attendance data with a wide variety of metrics described in published trials of exercise training programmes for people with COPD. After reviewing 234 eligible full-text articles, only 37% reported attendance of participants in exercise training sessions, and of these, 12% reported a priori criteria for attendance (range 50 and 100%). Fair associations were calculated between exercise session attendance, exercise frequency and programme duration. No significant association was found between improvements in exercise performance and prescribed or attended training volume.

It is important to note that our analysis included only those studies published in English that reported attendance rates at supervised exercise training sessions. On review of a random sample (15%) of studies excluded due to the language of publication, it appears unlikely that inclusion of studies published in a language other than English would have improved the reporting rate for attendance. It is more than likely that many of the studies excluded from this review collected data on attendance in exercise sessions which was not reported in the publication. Where attendance was low or modest, authors may have perceived this as a limitation. Alternatively, where attendance was high, or the a priori criteria of 100% were required, authors may have elected not to report attendance on the assumption that the reporting of prescribed exercise frequency and programme duration would suffice.

Theoretically, exercising more frequently per week should have a positive relationship with improvement in exercise outcomes. In an earlier synthesis of exercise frequency and exercise outcomes, Ringbaek et al.[9] plotted mean differences in the 6 min walk test or 12 min walk test between control and active intervention groups against prescribed frequency of exercise per week for six controlled trials. We based our descriptive analysis upon this model but included both prescribed and attended supervised sessions (training volume; frequency × programme duration) and calculated improvement in exercise outcomes as a percentage change from baseline (rather than metres). It should be noted that this descriptive analysis did not account for mode or intensity of exercise and included only a small sample of 20 studies. No relationship between training volume (attended or prescribed) and improvement in functional exercise outcomes was detected. If the reporting of attendance is a random phenomenon and our sample is representative of all relevant studies, then there may truly be little, if any association between attendance, training volume or exercise capacity. However, due to the low number of studies reporting attendance to date, the variable reporting of attendance metrics and the lack of ITT analysis, the associations presented in this paper are highly censored and likely to reflect only a small portion of the actual dose–response curve. Other factors that might explain the wide variety in exercise responses are differences in study population,[73] training exercises,[7] unsupervised exercise in addition to supervised sessions, (unknown) biases caused by dropouts[73] and in some cases lack of randomisation.

There are a number of alternative ways in which the relationship between frequency of training and improvements in exercise outcomes could be explored. This review included studies which prospectively aimed to compare the effect of different exercise frequencies[4, 19, 31, 46] or reported exercise attendance–response associations.[27, 74-76] In addition, where studies had a priori criteria for attendance and included both ITT and PP analysis, exercise outcomes could be compared.[31, 41, 43, 53, 68, 77] Overall, there were a greater number of studies which provided evidence to support a significant relationship between increased frequency of exercise training leading to greater improvements in exercise outcomes[4, 41, 43, 45, 46, 53, 68, 74, 76, 77] compared with those which did not support this association.[19, 27, 31, 75]

In most studies, there are participants who attend very few supervised exercise sessions, leading to negligible improvements in exercise outcomes and reduction in the group effect. If these people are excluded (PP analysis), this is likely to inflate both exercise outcomes and attendance rates. Studies which reported an a priori criterion for attendance appear to preferentially report PP analysis (Table 1a) and rarely reported ITT analysis[21, 23, 24, 34] or both ITT and PP analysis.[27, 31, 32, 35]

In conclusion, this systematic review demonstrated inconsistent and incomplete reporting of attendance data in studies investigating exercise training programmes for people with COPD. To investigate this cost defining feature, we recommend that all studies that evaluate exercise programmes for people with COPD should: (i) report attendance at exercise sessions, preferably using mean and standard deviation (median and interquartile range for skewed data) or use graphic representation; (ii) provide a statement concerning a priori requirements for exercise attendance and why the criterion has been set at a particular level; and (iii) report the dose–response relationship between the primary health outcome and exercise session attendance rate for the entire sample, irrespective of programme completion (ITT analysis). Consistent and explicit reporting of exercise session attendance would be useful for clinicians planning to develop or set up specific exercise training programmes based on previous literature, as well as for researchers evaluating efficiency and effectiveness trials. These reporting standards would permit not only more rigorous secondary analyses of dose–response characteristics of exercise training in this population, but also enable decisions about the level and value of a priori criteria for attendance.

Acknowledgement

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Mr Ricky Critcher, Manager of Information Technology, Division of Health Sciences, University of South Australia for his assistance with formatting figures.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • 1
    Lacasse Y, Goldstein R, Lasserson TJ et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2006; (4): CD003793. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub2.
  • 2
    Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). 2011. [Accessed 23 Jul 2012.] Available from URL: http://www.goldcopd.org/
  • 3
    Beauchamp MK, Janaudis-Ferreira T, Goldstein RS et al. Optimal duration of pulmonary rehabilitation for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—a systematic review. Chron. Respir. Dis. 2011; 8: 129140.
  • 4
    Rossi G, Florini F, Romagnoli M et al. Length and clinical effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation in outpatients with chronic airway obstruction. Chest 2005; 127: 105109.
  • 5
    Solanes I, Guell R, Casan P et al. Duration of pulmonary rehabilitation to achieve a plateau in quality of life and walk test in COPD. Respir. Med. 2009; 103: 722728.
  • 6
    Troosters T, Casaburi R, Gosselink R et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2005; 172: 1938.
  • 7
    Nici L, Donner C, Wouters E et al. American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2006; 173: 13901413.
  • 8
    Portney L, Watkins M. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009.
  • 9
    Ringbaek TJ, Broendum E, Hemmingsen L et al. Rehabilitation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exercise twice a week is not sufficient! Respir. Med. 2000; 94: 150154.
  • 10
    Kongsgaard M, Backer V, Jørgensen K et al. Heavy resistance training increases muscle size, strength and physical function in elderly male COPD-patients—a pilot study. Respir. Med. 2004; 98: 10001007.
  • 11
    Alexander JL, Phillips WT, Wagner CL. The effect of strength training on functional fitness in older patients with chronic lung disease enrolled in pulmonary rehabilitation. Rehabil. Nurs. 2008; 33: 9197.
  • 12
    Crisafulli E, Gorgone P, Vagaggini B et al. Efficacy of standard rehabilitation in COPD outpatients with comorbidities. Eur. Respir. J. 2010; 36: 10421048.
  • 13
    Mador MJ, Deniz O, Aggarwal A et al. Effect of respiratory muscle endurance training in patients with COPD undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation. Chest 2005; 128: 12161224.
  • 14
    Mador MJ, Bozkanat E, Aggarwal A et al. Endurance and strength training in patients with COPD. Chest 2004; 125: 20362045.
  • 15
    Mador MJ, Krawza M, Alhajhusian A et al. Interval training versus continuous training in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev 2009; 29: 126132.
  • 16
    Normandin EA, McCusker C, Connors M et al. An evaluation of two approaches to exercise conditioning in pulmonary rehabilitation. Chest 2002; 121: 10851091.
  • 17
    Toshima MT, Kaplan RM, Ries AL. Experimental evaluation of rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: short-term effects on exercise endurance and health status. Health Psychol. 1990; 9: 237252.
  • 18
    Mercer K, Follette D, Breslin E et al. Comparison of functional state between bilateral lung volume reduction surgery and pulmonary rehabilitation: a six-month follow up study. Int. J. Surg. Investig. 1999; 1: 139147.
  • 19
    O'Neill B, McKevitt A, Rafferty S et al. A comparison of twice- versus once-weekly supervision during pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2007; 88: 167172.
  • 20
    Ninot G, Moullec G, Picot MC et al. Cost-saving effect of supervised exercise associated to COPD self-management education program. Respir. Med. 2011; 105: 377385.
  • 21
    Evans RA, Singh SJ, Collier R et al. Generic, symptom based, exercise rehabilitation; integrating patients with COPD and heart failure. Respir. Med. 2010; 104: 14731481.
  • 22
    Dourado VZ, Tanni SE, Antunes LC et al. Effect of three exercise programs on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2009; 42: 263271.
  • 23
    White RJ, Rudkin ST, Harrison ST et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation compared with brief advice given for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 2002; 22: 338344.
  • 24
    Ko FW, Dai DL, Ngai J et al. Effect of early pulmonary rehabilitation on health care utilization and health status in patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of COPD. Respirology 2011; 16: 617624.
  • 25
    Fernández AM, Pascual J, Ferrando C et al. PT Home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in very severe COPD: is it safe and useful? J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. Prev. 2009; 29: 325331.
  • 26
    Arnardóttir RH, Boman G, Larsson K et al. Interval training compared with continuous training in patients with COPD. Respir. Med. 2007; 101: 11961204.
  • 27
    Eaton T, Young P, Fergusson W et al. Does early pulmonary rehabilitation reduce acute health-care utilization in COPD patients admitted with an exacerbation? A randomized controlled study. Respirology 2009; 14: 230238.
  • 28
    Harpa Arnardottir R, Sorensen S, Ringqvist I et al. Two different training programmes for patients with COPD: a randomised study with 1-year follow-up. Respir. Med. 2006; 100: 130139.
  • 29
    Haugen TS, Stavem K. Rehabilitation in a warm versus a colder climate in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized study. J. Mol. Signal. 2007; 27: 5056.
  • 30
    Kozu R, Senjyu H, Jenkins SC et al. Differences in response to pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiration 2011; 81: 196205.
  • 31
    Liddell F, Webber J. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot study evaluating a once-weekly versus twice-weekly supervised programme. Physiotherapy 2010; 96: 6874.
  • 32
    Maltais F, Bourbeau J, Shapiro S et al. Effects of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2008; 149: 869878.
  • 33
    Norweg AM, Whiteson J, Malgady R et al. The effectiveness of different combinations of pulmonary rehabilitation program components: a randomized controlled trial. Chest 2005; 128: 663672.
  • 34
    Seymour JM, Moore L, Jolley CJ et al. Outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation following acute exacerbations of COPD. Thorax 2010; 65: 423428.
  • 35
    Wadell K, Sundelin G, Henriksson-Larsén K et al. High intensity physical group training in water—an effective training modality for patients with COPD. Respir. Med. 2004; 98: 428438.
  • 36
    Wedzicha JA, Bestall JC, Garrod R et al. Randomized controlled trial of pulmonary rehabilitation in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, stratified with the MRC dyspnoea scale. Eur. Respir. J. 1998; 12: 363369.
  • 37
    Ries AL, Ellis B, Hawkins RW. Upper extremity exercise training in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chest 1988; 93: 688692.
  • 38
    Cockram J, Cecins N, Jenkins S. Maintaining exercise capacity and quality of life following pulmonary rehabilitation. Respirology 2006; 11: 98104.
  • 39
    Sykes K, Hang HW. Inspiratory muscle training in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Recreat. Ther. 2005; 4: 3948.
  • 40
    White RJ, Rudkin ST, Ashley J et al. Outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. R. Coll. Physicians Lond. 1997; 31: 541545.
  • 41
    Effing T, Zielhuis G, Kerstjens H et al. Community based physiotherapeutic exercise in COPD self-management: a randomised controlled trial. Respir. Med. 2011; 105: 418426.
  • 42
    Griffiths TL, Burr ML, Campbell IA et al. Results at 1 year of outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 362368.
  • 43
    Engstrom CP, Persson LO, Larsson S et al. Long-term effects of a pulmonary rehabilitation programme in outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled study. Scand. J. Rehabil. Med. 1999; 31: 207213.
  • 44
    Bendstrup KE, Ingemann Jensen J, Holm S et al. Out-patient rehabilitation improves activities of daily living, quality of life and exercise tolerance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur. Respir. J. 1997; 10: 28012806.
  • 45
    Berry MJ, Rejeski WJ, Adair NE et al. A randomized, controlled trial comparing long-term and short-term exercise in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 2003; 23: 6068.
  • 46
    Bjornshave B, Korsgaard J. Comparison of two different levels of physical training in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Lung 2005; 183: 101108.
  • 47
    Guell R, Casan P, Belda J et al. Long-term effects of outpatient rehabilitation of COPD: a randomized trial. Chest 2000; 117: 976983.
  • 48
    Hunter J, Singh SJ, Morgan MD. Objective monitoring of adherence with home exercise training during pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Physiotherapy 2006; 92: 5054.
  • 49
    Mahler DA, Ward J, Mejia-Alfaro R. Stability of dyspnea ratings after exercise training in patients with COPD. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 10831087.
  • 50
    Man WD, Polkey MI, Donaldson N et al. Community pulmonary rehabilitation after hospitalisation for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled study. BMJ 2004; 329: 12091213.
  • 51
    Punzal PA, Ries AL, Kaplan RM et al. Maximum intensity exercise training in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Chest 1991; 100: 618623.
  • 52
    Varga J, Porszasz J, Boda K et al. Supervised high intensity continuous and interval training vs. self-paced training in COPD. Respir. Med. 2007; 101: 22972304.
  • 53
    Bianchi L, Foglio K, Porta R et al. Lack of additional effect of adjunct of assisted ventilation to pulmonary rehabilitation in mild COPD patients. Respir. Med. 2002; 96: 359367.
  • 54
    Borghi-Silva A, Mendes RG, Toledo AC et al. Adjuncts to physical training of patients with severe COPD: oxygen or noninvasive ventilation? Respir. Care 2010; 55: 885894.
  • 55
    Busch AJ, McClements JD. Effects of a supervised home exercise program on patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Phys. Ther. 1988; 68: 469474.
  • 56
    Collins EG, Fehr L, Bammert C et al. Effect of ventilation-feedback training on endurance and perceived breathlessness during constant work-rate leg-cycle exercise in patients with COPD. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2003; 40: 3544.
  • 57
    Dallas MI, McCusker C, Haggerty MC et al. Using pedometers to monitor walking activity in outcome assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Chron. Respir. Dis. 2009; 6: 217224.
  • 58
    Donesky-Cuenco D, Janson S, Neuhaus J et al. Adherence to a home-walking prescription in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Heart Lung 2007; 36: 348363.
  • 59
    Duiverman ML, Wempe JB, Bladder G et al. Nocturnal non-invasive ventilation in addition to rehabilitation in hypercapnic patients with COPD. Thorax 2008; 63: 10521057.
  • 60
    Emery CF, Schein RL, Hauck ER et al. Psychological and cognitive outcomes of a randomized trial of exercise among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Psychol. 1998; 17: 232240.
  • 61
    Eves ND, Sandmeyer LC, Wong EY et al. Helium-hyperoxia: a novel intervention to improve the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with COPD. Chest 2009; 135: 609618.
  • 62
    Ferrari M, Vangelista A, Vedovi E et al. Minimally supervised home rehabilitation improves exercise capacity and health status in patients with COPD. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004; 83: 337343.
  • 63
    Gimenez M, Servera E, Vergara P et al. Endurance training in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a comparison of high versus moderate intensity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2000; 81: 102109.
  • 64
    Janaudis-Ferreira T, Hill K, Goldstein RS et al. Resistance arm training in patients with COPD: a randomized controlled trial. Chest 2011; 139: 151158.
  • 65
    Leung RW, Alison JA, McKeough ZJ et al. Ground walk training improves functional exercise capacity more than cycle training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a randomised trial. J. Physiother. 2010; 56: 105112.
  • 66
    Magadle R, McConnell AK, Beckerman M et al. Inspiratory muscle training in pulmonary rehabilitation program in COPD patients. Respir. Med. 2007; 101: 15001505.
  • 67
    Maltais F, Leblanc P, Jobin J et al. Intensity of training and physiologic adaptation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1997; 155: 555561.
  • 68
    O'Shea SD, Taylor NF, Paratz JD. A predominantly home-based progressive resistance exercise program increases knee extensor strength in the short-term in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Aust. J. Physiother. 2007; 53: 229237.
  • 69
    Phillips WT, Benton MJ, Wagner CL et al. The effect of single set resistance training on strength and functional fitness in pulmonary rehabilitation patients. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 2006; 26: 330337.
  • 70
    Troosters T, Gosselink R, Decramer M. Short- and long-term effects of outpatient rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Am. J. Med. 2000; 109: 207212.
  • 71
    Waterhouse JC, Walters SJ, Oluboyede Y et al. A randomised 2 x 2 trial of community versus hospital pulmonary rehabilitation, followed by telephone or conventional follow-up. Health Technol. Assess. 2010; 14: 1140.
  • 72
    Theander K, Jakobsson P, Jorgensen N et al. Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on fatigue, functional status and health perceptions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil. 2009; 23: 125136.
  • 73
    Bjornshave B, Korsgaard J, Nielsen CV. Does pulmonary rehabilitation work in clinical practice? A review on selection and dropout in randomized controlled trials on pulmonary rehabilitation. Clin. Epidemiol. 2012; 2: 7383.
  • 74
    Garrod R, Mikelsons C, Paul EA et al. Randomized controlled trial of domiciliary noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and physical training in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2000; 162: 13351341.
  • 75
    Moore J, Fiddler H, Seymour J et al. Effect of a home exercise video programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. Rehabil. Med. 2009; 41: 195200.
  • 76
    Troosters T, Gosselink R, Decramer M. Exercise training in COPD: how to distinguish responders from nonresponders. J. Cardiopulm. Rehabil. 2001; 21: 1017.
  • 77
    Wadell K, Henriksson-Larsén K, Lundgren R et al. Group training in patients with COPD—long-term effects after decreased training frequency. Disabil. Rehabil. 2005; 27: 571581.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgement
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
FilenameFormatSizeDescription
resp12201-sup-0001-ts1.doc29K

Table S1 Search strategy.

resp12201-sup-0002-ts2.doc268K

Table S2 Summary of studies included in the systematic review organized by attendance code.

resp12201-sup-0003-ts3.doc74K

Table S3 Assessment of methodological quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) rating scale for randomised controlled trials.

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.