↓ Skip to main content

Exercise training to improve exercise capacity and quality of life in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exercise training to improve exercise capacity and quality of life in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009385.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marita T Dale, Zoe J McKeough, Thierry Troosters, Peter Bye, Jennifer A Alison

Abstract

Non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases, such as asbestosis and silicosis, are similar to other chronic respiratory diseases and may be characterised by breathlessness, reduced exercise capacity and reduced health-related quality of life. Some non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases are a global health issue and very few treatment options, including pharmacological, are available. Therefore, examining the role of exercise training is particularly important to determine whether exercise training is an effective treatment option in non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases. To assess the effects of exercise training for people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases compared with control, placebo or another non-exercise intervention on exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and levels of physical activity. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and AMED (all searched from inception until February 2015), national and international clinical trial registries, reference lists of relevant papers and we contacted experts in the field for identification of suitable studies. We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared exercise training of at least four weeks duration with no exercise training, placebo or another non-exercise intervention. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and to interpret findings. We synthesized study results using a random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses on participants with dust-related interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and participants with asbestos related pleural disease (ARPD). Two RCTs including a combined total of 40 participants (35 from one study and five from a second study) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one participants were randomised to the exercise training group and 19 participants were randomised to the control group. The included studies evaluated the effects of exercise training compared to a control group of no exercise training in people with dust-related ILDs and ARPD. The exercise training programme in both studies was in an outpatient setting for an eight-week period. The risk of bias was low in both studies. There were no reported adverse events of exercise training. Following exercise training, six-minute walk distance (6MWD) increased with a mean difference (MD) of 53.81 metres (m) (95% CI 34.36 to 73.26 m). Improvements were also seen in the domains of health-related quality of life: Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnoea domain (MD 2.58, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.44); CRQ Fatigue domain (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.89); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 2.61, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.49); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 1.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.72). Improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life were also evident six months following the intervention period: 6MWD (MD 52.68 m, 95% CI 27.43 to 77.93 m); CRQ Dyspnoea domain (MD 3.03, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.66); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 5.57, 95% CI 2.34 to 8.81); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.23). Exercise training did not result in improvements in the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnoea scale immediately following exercise training or six months following exercise training. The improvements following exercise training were similar in a subgroup of participants with dust-related ILDs and in a subgroup of participants with ARPD compared to the control group, with no statistically significant differences in treatment effects between the subgroups. The evidence examining exercise training in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases is of very low quality. This is due to imprecision in the results from the small number of trials and the small number of participants, the indirectness of evidence due to a paucity of information on disease severity and the data from one study being from a subgroup of participants, and inconsistency from high heterogeneity in some results. Therefore, although the review findings indicate that an exercise training programme is effective in improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in the short-term and at six months follow-up, we remain unsure of these findings due to the very low quality evidence. Larger, high quality trials are needed to determine the strength of these findings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 26%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 20%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,262,588
of 14,071,071 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,049
of 10,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,197
of 284,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#164
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,071,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.