Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Online versus face-to-face pulmonary rehabilitation for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Bourne S, de Vos R, North M, Chauhan A, Green B, Brown T, Cornelius V, Wilkinson T
BMJ Open 2017 Jul;7(7):e014580
clinical trial
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To obtain evidence whether the online pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme 'my-PR' is non-inferior to a conventional face-to-face PR in improving physical performance and symptom scores in patients with COPD. DESIGN: A two-arm parallel single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The online arm carried out pulmonary rehabilitation in their own homes and the face to face arm in a local rehabilitation facility. PARTICIPANTS: 90 patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), modified Medical Research Council score of 2 or greater referred for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), randomised in a 2:1 ratio to online (n = 64) or face-to-face PR (n = 26). Participants unable to use an internet-enabled device at home were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were 6 min walk distance test and the COPD assessment test (CAT) score at completion of the programme. INTERVENTIONS: A 6-week PR programme organised either as group sessions in a local rehabilitation facility, or online PR via log in and access to 'myPR'. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference for the 6 min walk test (6MWT) between groups for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population was 23.8 m with the lower 95% CI well above the non-inferiority threshold of -40.5 m at -4.5 m with an upper 95% CI of +52.2 m. This result was consistent in the per-protocol (PP) population with a mean adjusted difference of 15 m (-13.7 to 43.8). The CAT score difference in the ITT was -1.0 in favour of the online intervention with the upper 95% CI well below the non-inferiority threshold of 1.8 at 0.86 and the lower 95% CI of -2.9. The PP analysis was consistent with the ITT. CONCLUSION: PR is an evidenced-based and guideline-mandated intervention for patients with COPD with functional limitation. A 6-week programme of online-supported PR was non-inferior to a conventional model delivered in face-to-face sessions in terms of effects on 6MWT distance, and symptom scores and was safe and well tolerated.
Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help